Military to suppress Tea Party uprising - article

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Famas

New member
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...d-crush-a-tea-party-rebellion/?partner=obtech

As the title implies, the writer examines two authors who have written about a theoretical scenario in which Tea Party militias instigate an armed uprising.

The writer explains that the authors try to grasp how feasible this scenario is and whether or not a government reaction would make things better or worse.

I did not bring this up to discuss rebellion or tactics of this nature. I bring this to your attention because I find it to be an unbelievably irresponsible piece of so-called "journalism". I've only read Forbes a few times for articles I've found relating to my line of work, but I honestly cannot believe this adolescent tripe is even considered worthy, let alone allowed in print.

Maybe this is an aspect of American journalism I'm not aware of. I realize the freedom of speech issues here, and I'm not aware of Forbes political leanings enough.

Your thoughts?
 
According to the article the author quotes:

Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.
Click to expand...

We've already got credibility problems here. The Insurrection Act wasn't a piece of Reconstruction legislation; it was written in 1807. Furthermore, the idea has nothing to do with "bad feelings" as it does the Founders' suspicion of standing armies.

Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then there would be some real questions about the will of the local people, and we'd have an interesting 10th Amendment case study. It doesn't automatically entail a military response.

The idea that "Tea Party" keeps getting mentioned as opposed to a generic insurrection scenario is somewhat telling.
 
Agree with Tom. It's rather disingenuous to prepare orders against a group that is virtually a non threat as opposed to the forty-seven million strong Free Stuff Army. When their EBTs run dry because JP Morgan's computer has another glitch that won't be fixed soon, they'll riot (or as the media politely phrases it, flash mob) and take whatever they want.
 
I did not bother to read the article.

As I recall,the Tea Party was about the folks being dissatisfied with the actions of both parties regarding irresponsible spending and over reaching government

They made a point of saying so to their representatives when they returned to the districts.

The Tea Party played a very significant roll in taking the House back in the 2010 election.Without that Tea Party effort,today one party would control thje Presidency,the Senate,and the House.

IMO,those projecting demonic images upon the Tea Party to discredit them are far more sinister than citizens who engage to support the Constitution and responsibility.

I hope folks will become familiar enough with Alynski's "Rules for Radicals" to recognize when these techniques are being used and then disspell the effect.
 
We won't be getting into broad Tea Party politics, but the fact that they, of all people, were singled out is telling.

I've seen official scenarios involving "extreme right-wing militias" and white nationalists, but that's a bit more broad. Specifying a specific and diverse group with no history of threatening violence, stockpiling weapons, or conducting paramilitary exercises smacks of having a petty political ax to grind.

I don't imagine the powers that be will be taking this very seriously.
 
The Political elite of both parties are deathly afraid of the Tea Party. I am not surprised that Forbes, Republican establishment, would publish such an irresponsible piece.

For some years now, I have been concerned about the military exercises which are being conducted in our cities.

Frankly, I do not wish to see a repeat of the 1967 Detroit riots. For those of you who do not remember, LBJ dispatched a Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. The Brigade, newly rotated from Vietnam, used the same tactics they employed in Vietnam. This included firing 106mm recoil less Rifles into apartment buildings.

At the same time I understand that the NG was poorly trained and unable to cope with the uprising.
 
Tom Servo: "The idea that "Tea Party" keeps getting mentioned as opposed to a generic insurrection scenario is somewhat telling."

Could you elaborate some more, please? I think it is just part of the demonization of the Tea Party (a loosely coordinated group) that both parties seem to fear at some level.

If you don't want to do it publicly, I'd love to see your response in any form.
 
I believe the view from the top is that your only value to society is the profits you are making for business and the taxes you pay to Government.

If you don't pay your taxes and get to be so troublesome that business profits are effected, they will call out the military on you.

The US Military was called out and killed strikers in all sorts of labor disputes in the nineteenth century. No reason to believe that they won't do the same now days.
 
Tom Servo, I didn't read the Forbes article, and I didn't look up the Insurrection Act.

I just want to point out that the law restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement, resultant from resentment of Reconstruction, was "Posse Commitatus."
 
I am surprised that anyone has taken the secession petitions as serious attempts to secede rather than what they actually are, protests against the way the federal government is being run. To see that Forbes, a purported reputable publication, published such an article is somewhat disappointing, to say the least. It appears Forbes was either "scraping the bottom of the barrel" for material or having "amateur hour" in the publishing department.

As for the US military using force against American civilians, the thought is somewhat frightening that the federal government would see the need to hold power so important that it would kill its own citizens. We have seen it before in this country, and if you watch the news you can see it any day of the week.
 
We are going off the rails quickly. I just deleted a post suggesting an insurrection. Sigh.

Armed force has been used against citizens quite a bit. However, some folks think it is ok if it isn't their insurrection.

Don't go there.
 
Could you elaborate some more, please? I think it is just part of the demonization of the Tea Party (a loosely coordinated group) that both parties seem to fear at some level.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's like drafting up such a scenario in case "Bob Dole Voters" or "Fox News Fans" should start a militia. It smacks of political bias on the part of the writers.
 
Well, it was usually the militia that was called out to supress strikers and that was well into the 20th century. They were still being called the militia, too. Federal troops were called out when the militia couldn't handle things, same as in the 18th century.
 
BlueTrain, the National Guard, per se, is NOT the militia, though you do love to argue such in any number of threads, despite the legal definition of the militia having been cited in any number of those same threads.

The National Guard, when not in a mobilized (IE Federalized) status, does not fall under the restrictions of Posse Commitatus, because the Guard is considered a State level organization when it is not mobilized.

This is why we often see Guard units called up to deter looters after a natural disaster, but we do not see Regular or Reserve units (which are always considered Federal troops).

Note that Posse Commitatus does not apply to non-domestic law enforcement actions, which is why the US Navy can assist the US Coast Guard in drug enforcement actions in international waters.
 
Weren't Federal troops and federalized Guard units used to enforce desegregation orders in the South?

Where are we going - if there was a armed insurrection - federal forces would respond. So what?

If Forbes wants to write articles about hypothetical responses to nuts - Yawn.
 
Glenn, Federal troops can't be used in a domestic law enforcement role without a lot of hurdles being jumped. Guard units can be mobilized by the governor of the state in which they are based. There is a major difference.

Also, in the desegregation cases you are talking about, the Army had to be called in because the state's Guard units were being mobilized to thwart Federal law. That created a very different set of circumstances.
 
Glenn E. Meyer Weren't Federal troops and federalized Guard units used to enforce desegregation orders in the South?
Click to expand...

The Arkansas National Guard was drawn into the conflict when Governor Orval Faubus ordered them to "Preserve the Peace" by turning away the black students who were attempting to integrate into Little Rock's Central High School. President Dwight D. Eisenhower reacted to this use of the Guard to foil the court-ordered integration by federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard and using it to protect the nine black students integrating Central High School.
 
"Federal troops can't be used in a domestic law enforcement role without a lot of hurdles being jumped."

If there is a general "armed insurrection," by an organized group, and depending on its size and its scope, it may well rise above the level of a law enforcement matter and into the scope of military response required.

At that point, posse commitatus is a moot point.
 
The legal definition of the militia includes the organized militia, known as the National Guard. It is public law. It has been that way since 1903. There is also the unorganized militia. It also further defines it as consisting of those at least 17 years of age and under 45.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top