Shocking new litmus test for military leaders?

[Gatormb]

"Will you fire on American citizens?"

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/

Tell me it ain't so!

[oragator1]

nm, wrong site.

[secgator]

If a military leader were over ordered to do so--I would hope they would turn and fire on those who gives the order. And continue to do so right on up the ladder.

And we all know where the buck stops don't we.

[rivergator]

This is all it takes to start this crap anymore: Second hand anonymous claim posted on a nutjob website. And pretty soon, rightwingers everywhere are claiming it's true.

[northgagator]

This is all it takes to start this crap anymore: Second hand anonymous claim posted on a nutjob website. And pretty soon, rightwingers everywhere are claiming it's true.

Unlike a certain coal mine story this topic may have some legs

On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work. http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

Is Garrow a nut job?

[oragator1]

Garrow is a self described hard right wing christian, but not a nut job as far as I can tell.

I would still assume it's bogus, for the simple reason that if this were being asked we would hear about it from multitudes of people, but I can see a way it would be asked in context...take the example of the American citizen we killed overseas in a drone strike, some may object to that. It would be a fair question as to whether someone would order that strike in a similar circumstance.

[rivergator]

Unlike a certain coal mine story this topic may have some legs

http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

Is Garrow a nut job?

I don't know if he's a nut job or not. But let's see what we've got:

1. The only person saying it is someone most of us have never heard of. Is this guy now our go-to source for news about the military.
2. He's quoting some anonymous person. We have no clue who he is, if he knows anything about it, if he said it or if he even exists..
3. You have no confirmation from anyone. We have about 3 million active and reserve military personnel. None has said anything about this.
4. No reputable news source is reporting.

You figure that's pretty solid? What's next, "Fred Sanford says ....."

[uftaipan]

I'm not seeing the big deal here. The Constitution gives the Congress and President authority to use the military to suppress insurrections (Article I, Section 7 & Article II, Section 2, respectively). The Insurrection Act of 1807 (amended many times since) provides more detail on the circumstances in which Presidents may use the armed forces of the United States to put down rebellion, insurrection, and lawlessness in the event local authorities are not sufficient (see Los Angeles, 1992). Further, all service personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, meaning U.S. citizens as necessary.

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

[WESGATORS]

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

What's interesting about this paragraph is how easily it could have been something a proud Nazi German soldier would say. All those who stood opposed to and resisted the Nazis, both inside and outside of Germany, were also considered "enemies". It didn't matter if their cause was just or not, they were still nothing more than "enemies" to be liquidated, and Nazi German laws allowed for just that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.


Good point. The United States was forged by the spirit of insurrection. What's now considered the "enemy" is what made this country possible in the first place.

[Minister_of_Information]

If the op is to be believed, what is shocking is not that US soldiers might fire on civilians under certain circumstances, it is the emphasis placed on the potential for insurrection by the Obama administration and the need to screen the senior military leadership for loyalty (implying that a military coup is a possible outcome otherwise). Now I don't find any of that particularly credible, but if it was that is what would shock me.

[uftaipan]

If the op is to be believed, what is shocking is not that US soldiers might fire on civilians under certain circumstances, it is the emphasis placed on the potential for insurrection by the Obama administration and the need to screen the senior military leadership for loyalty (implying that a military coup is a possible outcome otherwise). Now I don't find any of that particularly credible, but if it was that is what would shock me.

Okay, I'll buy that.

[HALLGATOR]

I doubt Obama is interviewing each one of our military leaders personally so who is responsible for asking these questions?

[uftaipan]

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Of course, that is consistent with the key mitigating circumstance for all rebellions: Don't do it unless you can win.

[rivergator]

I doubt Obama is interviewing each one of our military leaders personally so who is responsible for asking these questions?

I don't know. Someone did say it on the Internet, and you know that makes it true.

[GatorSaint]

....Bonjour!

[northgagator]

You figure that's pretty solid? What's next, "Fred Sanford says ....."

Where did you get that I said "pretty solid"?'

I said the story may have legs?

That is no where solid.

Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are making up crap again. Which one is it?

[rivergator]

Where did you get that I said "pretty solid"?'

I said the story may have legs?

That is no where solid.

Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are making up crap again. Which one is it?

why would it have some legs? just because some guy you never heard of who has no connection with the military said some anonymous person told him?

[bluelang]

Which people exactly is Obama interviewing? He only has oversight of a few key positions, and he has a fairly busy schedule. Has he had the secdef swear an oath to shoot Americans?

[phatGator]

The Army has already fired on US citizens. In 1932 thousands of WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that the government honor their service certificates. They set up camp there but President Hoover ordered them removed. The shocking thing to me is some of those involved went on to become this country's heroes. According to Wikipedia:

"At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran's wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good.""

[uftaipan]

What's interesting about this paragraph is how easily it could have been something a proud Nazi German soldier would say. All those who stood opposed to and resisted the Nazis, both inside and outside of Germany, were also considered "enemies". It didn't matter if their cause was just or not, they were still nothing more than "enemies" to be liquidated, and Nazi German laws allowed for just that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

At first I just shrugged this off as a typical emotional "You're a Nazi" attack that people use when they run out of rational arguments. But as I thought about what you said, it occured to me that maybe you did not appreciate the difference between blind obedience to a man and reasoned, conditional obedience that is consistent with the Kantian principles of law, duty, and good intent.

So I will attempt a dispassionate clarification.

My position is that there are circumstances (albeit few and far between) where it is both appropriate and lawful to use the military against U.S. citizens. I cited several historical examples where most reasonable people agree that all other measures had been previously exhausted, and the use of military force was sadly necessary. In the unlikely event that U.S. citizens unjustly took up arms against their government, I would have a Kantian duty to obey the orders of the President so long as they were in accordance with applicable U.S. code (Posse Comitatus, etc.), the law of armed conflict, rules of engagement, and were authorized by statute (for example, Congress passed a resolution declaring a state of rebellion). This is consistent with my oath to support and defend the Constitution and obey the elected civil government.

It is not, nor should it be, my place to determine what wars are good and what wars are bad. If that strikes anyone as absurd or amoral, then I invite your attention to the potential alternative: Latin America, Africa, and parts of Europe and Asia are graveyards of republics whose militaries did not bend the knee to the will of their lawfully elected governments.

None of that should imply that there are not circumstances where I would not carry out orders, again consistent with law, duty, and intent. For example, I would immediately make every effort to resign before participating in an American form of the Night and Fog Decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_and_Fog_decree). And that is a good transition to talk about Nazi Germany.

ChartsandGrafs spoke of "Nazi German laws." That is a contradiction in terms. For those who are not aware, there was only ever one law of Third Reich: the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler "temporary" emergency powers in the wake of the Reichstag Fire. Even this passed the Reichstag under unlawful circumstances; the members of the Communist Party were taken into "protective custody" prior to the vote, giving the National Socialists an artificial majority. Prior to the vote, Hitler promised the members of opposing parties that he would hold as an enemy of the state anyone who dared to vote against it. Therefore, many of them voted for it, since it was going to pass with a Nazi majority anyway. The ones that didn't found themselves in Dachau, and most were never heard from again.

The Reichstag never met again in legislative session, just for Party rallies (there was only one party, since one of the first things Hitler did with his emergency powers was criminalize the rest of them). Every other "law" was a decree (we call them "Executive Orders") directly from Hitler in clear violation of the Weimar Constitution, including his merger of the office of President with the office of Chancellor upon the death of Hindenburg.

In other words, for German soldiers or paramilitary troops who committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, a claim of acting out of law, duty, and good intent is categorically false. Many acted strictly out of inclination. Many others acted out of fear. With respect to the second group, I sympathize a little. The Nazi regime summarily executed an astounding 22,000 soldiers for refusing orders during the war. When that did not grab sufficient attention, they started "evacuating" their families to lovely spots in Poland. You can threaten me all you want, but I honestly do not know what I would do if I truly believed someone would hurt my children for not complying with an unlawful order. I doubt many people could affirm to a certainty that they would stand on principle in a situation like that.

ChartsandGrafs, I hope facts such as those change your mind about the false comparison you made. But I have no expectations, of course.

[ChartsandGrafs]

ChartsandGrafs, I hope facts such as those change your mind about the false comparison you made. But I have no expectations, of course.

Sorry, but it doesn't. I believe the comparison is fair.

The only real difference between the fascist Nazi German government of 1939 and the fascist U.S. government of 2013 is, the German government was an honest, overt dictatorship right out in the open for everyone to see, while the U.S. government is a duplicitous closet dictatorship still pretending to be democratic. Rigged, corrupt elections are rigged, corrupt elections. It doesn't matter whether they are rigged through violence or intimidation or media propaganda or money. At the end of the day, the result is the same. Ditto for the legislative process. Our government is just as violent, crooked, and lawless as Nazi Germany's ever was.

And just so you know, uptaipan, I don't blame you and people like you for serving as the enforcement arm of a criminal government. I understand the level of brainwashing and State indoctrination involved. We're all subjected to it. So don't take any of this personally.

An attack on the system isn't necessarily an attack on you.

[gatorev12]

^http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28500000/They-see-me-trollin-They-hatin-chocoluvr101-28557270-300-333.png

[gatorev12]

At first I just shrugged this off as a typical emotional "You're a Nazi" attack that people use when they run out of rational arguments. But as I thought about what you said, it occured to me that maybe you did not appreciate the difference between blind obedience to a man and reasoned, conditional obedience that is consistent with the Kantian principles of law, duty, and good intent.

So I will attempt a dispassionate clarification.

ChartsandGrafs, I hope facts such as those change your mind about the false comparison you made. But I have no expectations, of course.

Well-said and appreciate the thoughts.

You could have also mentioned a pretty big difference between Nazi Germany of the 1930s/40s and the modern US government: dissent was not tolerated in any form and there was no such thing as "freedom of speech" to speak out against the government.

Here, people are free to rail against the government to their heart's content. Whether that's Republicans sniping at Obama or paranoid, delusional idiots like Alex Jones always looking for the boogeyman in the closet.

In a true dictatorship or fascist state, dissent is strictly monitored and controlled.

[bluelang]

It's charts. You might as well piss upwind.

[northgagator]

why would it have some legs? just because some guy you never heard of who has no connection with the military said some anonymous person told him?

I have heard of him before.

Also, this us not the first time a person has spouted this question to our military,

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/u-s-troops-asked-if-they-would-shoot-american-citizens1994-combat-arms-survey/

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-23829.html

http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Also there is the old story about how recruits for US Navy Seals are asked if they could kill their parents (US Citizens). I am not sure how true that story is buy a friend if mine said he applied to be a Seal and that he was asked that question. I don't have a link to prove it but I do believe my friend.

Also there is this thing we have but not used. It is called martial law. I would not be surprised if the higher ups in Washington ask our military leaders if they can or would carry out the order to implement martial law (which covers shooting of Americans).

[rivergator]

I have heard of him before.

Also, this us not the first time a person has spouted this question to our military,

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/u-s-troops-asked-if-they-would-shoot-american-citizens1994-combat-arms-survey/

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-23829.html

http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Also there is the old story about how recruits for US Navy Seals are asked if they could kill their parents (US Citizens). I am not sure how true that story is buy a friend if mine said he applied to be a Seal and that he was asked that question. I don't have a link to prove it but I do believe my friend.

Also there is this thing we have but not used. It is called martial law. I would not be surprised if the higher ups in Washington ask our military leaders if they can or would carry out the order to implement martial law (which covers shooting of Americans).

So you're saying this isn't a shocking new litmus test?

[tec68]

It's charts. You might as well piss upwind.

Hahahaha me thinks your right.

[northgagator]

So you're saying this isn't a shocking new litmus test?

Nice try at baiting me but it will not work!

My first statement on this thread was that the story may have SOME legs.
I am not saying everything in the OP is totally accurate nor am I saying that everything is totally bogus. There is a possibility that there MAYBE some truth in the story.

[Spurffelbow833]

I believe union busting has had a few examples of federal troops firing on the gentry. The Pullman Strike of 1894 is another example, in addition to the aforementioned Hoover incident.

http://rense.com/general93/unionb.htm

[g8trjax]

Sorry, but it doesn't. I believe the comparison is fair.

The only real difference between the fascist Nazi German government of 1939 and the fascist U.S. government of 2013 is, the German government was an honest, overt dictatorship right out in the open for everyone to see, while the U.S. government is a duplicitous closet dictatorship still pretending to be democratic. Rigged, corrupt elections are rigged, corrupt elections. It doesn't matter whether they are rigged through violence or intimidation or media propaganda or money. At the end of the day, the result is the same. Ditto for the legislative process. Our government is just as violent, crooked, and lawless as Nazi Germany's ever was.

And just so you know, uptaipan, I don't blame you and people like you for serving as the enforcement arm of a criminal government. I understand the level of brainwashing and State indoctrination involved. We're all subjected to it. So don't take any of this personally.

An attack on the system isn't necessarily an attack on you.

We don't have anything to fear until the govt becomes laser focused on banning weapons, militarizing the police force, creating various security agencies, molesting us at airports, using unmanned drones, all under the pretense of keeping us safe. Then it's time to worry.

[gregthegator]

So why did Bush and a Bi-partisian congress feel it necessary TO PASS LAW to allow American troops to be ACTIVE on American soil?

Both sides/party's KNOW what's coming...

Why 440 million EXTRA rounds for civilian Authority's?...hell my local police firing range sounds like the Normandy invasion 3 days a week...and LAST week was ALL seven days...yes...Sunday too:ill:

Why all the government sponsered survival ads ALL of a sudden?

[uftaipan]

So why did Bush and a Bi-partisian congress feel it necessary TO PASS LAW to allow American troops to be ACTIVE on American soil?

Both sides/party's KNOW what's coming...

Why 440 million EXTRA rounds for civilian Authority's?...hell my local police firing range sounds like the Normandy invasion 3 days a week...and LAST week was ALL seven days...yes...Sunday too:ill:

Why all the government sponsered survival ads ALL of a sudden?

Assuming all of that is true, I still still don't see indications and warnings of any type of uprising. The election passed peacefully. The economy, while not strong as it should be, is not in a freefall. The streets are not full of protesters. Honestly, the biggest risk I see for civil disorder in the near future is when Zimmermann is either acquitted or has the charges against him dismissed (and I assure you all, one of those two things will happen). Even that won't be something that the state authorities can't handle will proper planning.

[oragator1]

So why did Bush and a Bi-partisian congress feel it necessary TO PASS LAW to allow American troops to be ACTIVE on American soil?

Both sides/party's KNOW what's coming...

Why 440 million EXTRA rounds for civilian Authority's?...hell my local police firing range sounds like the Normandy invasion 3 days a week...and LAST week was ALL seven days...yes...Sunday too:ill:

Why all the government sponsered survival ads ALL of a sudden?

I don't believe it was malice or malevolence but post 9/11 paranoia. One day hopefully people will realize just how much freedom they gave up in the name of security, all for something that while horrific, killed about as many people as cancer kills every day and a half, or that domestic gun violence kills every month and a half(and of course laws to stop that are fought tooth and nail). The lives lost in our troops, invasive laws passed and money/effort spent on terrorism the last ten years borders on the farcical.
/rant.

[WESGATORS]

One day hopefully people will realize just how much freedom they gave up in the name of security

Doesn't this apply to the demand for new gun laws? Or are you just demonstrating that the concept is relative based on what the individual thinks is excessive vs. appropriate?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[oragator1]

Doesn't this apply to the demand for new gun laws? Or are you just demonstrating that the concept is relative based on what the individual thinks is excessive vs. appropriate?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It's a fair question on the broader view, but you are oversimplifying my point for a few reasons. First, the larger point I was trying to make was that we gave all of this up for something minor in the grand scheme of problems facing this country - and whether you believe gun control would help or hurt, no one can argue that we don't have a gun violence problem that far exceeds a terrorist problem on a day to day basis. It's not a questions of relativism, it's demonstrable. But to your point about gun laws, no gun laws have been passed, in fact over the last few decades they have been relaxed, with the assault weapons ban being dropped, cuts in funding for research among other things. Even if we did pass some gun control laws (which is unlikely), at worst we would be back to where we were very recently, it's hardly a step towards a loss of freedom in the same way the patriot act was for example, or the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which is where domestic troops got expanded powers and overturned precedence that goes back to the Civil War.

Now if your argument is that whatever we pass with regards to gun control would equal the losses we forced upon ourselves after 9/11, feel free to make that case. But nothing substantive will come from congress on gun control, it never does. They will pass something minor and claim victory on both sides, one side for stopping the stem of attacks on the second amendment, the other for getting something past the NRA, however small, and gun violence will carry on unaffected.

[VAg8r1]

US troops firing on American citizens? Anyone recall the 1967 Detroit riots?
Looting and fires spread through the Northwest side of Detroit, then crossed over to the East Side. Within 48 hours, the National Guard was mobilized, to be followed by the 82nd airborne on the riot’s fourth day. As police and military troops sought to regain control of the city, violence escalated. At the conclusion of 5 days of rioting, 43 people lay dead, 1189 injured and over 7000 people had been arrested. link (http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/d_index.htm)
Given that the 82nd Airborne Division is a unit of the US Army and that the rioters were American citizens, the use of the 82nd to suppress the riot would, by any definition of terms, be considered an example of US troops firing on American citizens.

[WESGATORS]

It's a fair question on the broader view, but you are oversimplifying my point for a few reasons. First, the larger point I was trying to make was that we gave all of this up for something minor in the grand scheme of problems facing this country - and whether you believe gun control would help or hurt, no one can argue that we don't have a gun violence problem that far exceeds a terrorist problem on a day to day basis. It's not a questions of relativism, it's demonstrable. But to your point about gun laws, no gun laws have been passed, in fact over the last few decades they have been relaxed, with the assault weapons ban being dropped, cuts in funding for research among other things. Even if we did pass some gun control laws (which is unlikely), at worst we would be back to where we were very recently, it's hardly a step towards a loss of freedom in the same way the patriot act was for example, or the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which is where domestic troops got expanded powers and overturned precedence that goes back to the Civil War.

We have many problems that exceed a terrorist problem on a day to day basis. Similarly, we have many problems that exceed a "gun control" problem on a day to day basis. And we certainly have many problems that exceed a "school shooting" problem on a day to day basis. Your general point is applicable to ALL of the issues that we seek to address with more security. How or why we prioritize the way we do is not easily quantifiable and certainly much less agreeable.

Much has been talked about in terms of new restrictions that need to be made; much of which is superficial BS to give the appearance of doing *something* about the problem.

Now if your argument is that whatever we pass with regards to gun control would equal the losses we forced upon ourselves after 9/11, feel free to make that case. But nothing substantive will come from congress on gun control, it never does. They will pass something minor and claim victory on both sides, one side for stopping the stem of attacks on the second amendment, the other for getting something past the NRA, however small, and gun violence will carry on unaffected.

I don't know how you would quantify that in either case. The only tangible "freedom" I lost after 9/11 was the increase in screening detail at airports. How about you? I think both concerns of loss of freedom are not easily measured in the short-term, but it's about managing the slippery slope potential. Loss of freedom doesn't happen in clear-cut steps, it's a gradual process. I want citizens to maintain the right and ability to let the government know "hey, you've gone too far" even if I don't always agree with the choices that are made to act on such ability.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[uftaipan]

US troops firing on American citizens? Anyone recall the 1967 Detroit riots?
link (http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/d_index.htm)
Given that the 82nd Airborne Division is a unit of the US Army and that the rioters were American citizens, the use of the 82nd to suppress the riot would, by any definition of terms, be considered an example of US troops firing on American citizens.

I see what you're getting at, but National Guardsmen are not U.S. troops in the context meant here. State governors are the commanders-in-chief of their respective Guards, except when brought into service of the United States. The U.S. active duty military and its reserve are governed by Title 10, U.S. Code, and are subject to Posse Comitatus. The National Guards of the various states are governed by Title 32 and are not normally subject to Posse Comitatus unless under the direct control of the federal government. In other words, the use of Guardsmen as a supplement to law enforcement is at the discretion of the governors in accordance with the laws of their states. I think what we're discussing here is the use of the U.S. military as a supplement to law enforcement once all other measures, including the National Guard, have been exhausted.

Edit: Apologies. I read right past where you mentioned the 82d Airborne, which is in fact an active-duty U.S. Army division. I was not aware that active units were involved in the race riots of the 1960s. I'll have to look into that. I wonder how much they were involved in actual law enforcement or whether they were just placed into physical security roles in order to free up more Guard units for enforcement. That was more or less how active units were used in the aftermath of Katrina: Guard did all of the patrolling and other active measures while active-duty troops just protected key infrastructure as a kind of show of force.

[oragator1]

We have many problems that exceed a terrorist problem on a day to day basis. Similarly, we have many problems that exceed a "gun control" problem on a day to day basis. And we certainly have many problems that exceed a "school shooting" problem on a day to day basis. Your general point is applicable to ALL of the issues that we seek to address with more security. How or why we prioritize the way we do is not easily quantifiable and certainly much less agreeable.

Much has been talked about in terms of new restrictions that need to be made; much of which is superficial BS to give the appearance of doing *something* about the problem.

I don't know how you would quantify that in either case. The only tangible "freedom" I lost after 9/11 was the increase in screening detail at airports. How about you? I think both concerns of loss of freedom are not easily measured in the short-term, but it's about managing the slippery slope potential. Loss of freedom doesn't happen in clear-cut steps, it's a gradual process. I want citizens to maintain the right and ability to let the government know "hey, you've gone too far" even if I don't always agree with the choices that are made to act on such ability.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Actually my point is that we should prioritize by the most serious issues, which I attempted to quantify, in order to point out how irrational our behavior has been. The school shooting wasn't referenced by me because by itself, as tragic it was, isn't a major issue, but it did highlight overall gun deaths, which are. And while we seem more than willing to give up money, resources, our soldier's lives for the former, we do nothing on the latter, which is more serious. I am not even saying we should have more gun control, only that the two approaches are out of whack, whether it's too much of the former or not enough of the latter.
I agree that the slippery slope argument can apply to any issue of freedom vs. security, but to date we haven't lost any freedoms with gun control so I don't see the comparison. If the question is potential gun control laws and their effect on freedoms that's a worthwhile debate, but again nothing substantive is going to pass because with guns the freedom argument wins, but for some reason it doesn't win with a far less serious issue.
As far as freedoms lost since 9/11, the idea that the government can monitor my calls if I call someone outside the country, that they can ask an ISP provider for my data without probable cause on me specifically, that I could be FISA'd etc etc etc, even that I could be summarily executed when deemed an enemy combatant of the state (I supported the actions we took because there was zero doubt about his loyalties, but wait until we do it to someone with less evidence). And the scary part is that most of these things could have already happened without me knowing, or to you for that matter. I don't want a government with that kind of power, and I don't understand why anyone would.