SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Congress just passed, and Trump signed, a law that makes all properties adjacent to the rail system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Constitution free zones.
From TFA on zerohedge.com:
"In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass."
As we all know, the standard in the 4th Amendment is a particularized warrant based on probable cause, "reasonable notice and need" as determined by the cops (i.e. agency chief), is not the same thing at all.
We already have constitution free zones within 100 100 miles of any border, and this provides a convenient framework to do a similar thing along any rail line (or road) so the Feds can liberate the center of the country from any form of Constitutional protection. Anyway ... the 4th Amendment is already dead at this point, but its piecemeal demise should provide a useful education for those clamoring for the demise of the 1st.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 28 2017, @12:17AM (17 children)
Because at that point it is pretty much too fuckin' late to do anything about it. Distract the public with big stupid divisive shit, then pass crap like this while nobody is looking..
By tradition, I did not read the article, so I wonder if this was one of those three a.m. votes, written in the back room, voted on while the opposition isn't present to complain.
For a party that's always yelling about enforcing the constitution, they sure do love using it as toilet paper.
Yes, the D's are no better, but at least they aren't pretending to 'protect and enforce' the constitution. Wait till the common people finally realize that there are more than two amendments! Regardless of party, I have met few that even seem aware there's more that freedom of speech and firearms. Unfortunately, when they do realize what's going on that is likely to be far too late. And the best equipped militia or citizen ain't gonna do jack shit against a fully armed military, when it goes down, they will be among the first targets.
***note to self: quit posting stoned, it devolves into a rant***
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday August 28 2017, @02:04AM (2 children)
The D's wouldn't even pretend if they had the scope and 'power, that the R's have: they, really, seem to be the same party. Two power mongers, just not calling themselves "Shit" and "Shat".
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 28 2017, @02:13PM (1 child)
Actually, the D's react very differently to being in power than the R's do. We got to see this in action back in 2009, when the D's had complete control of Congress and the presidency.
The standard Democratic playbook since at least the 1990's is "Well, we tried to do all those things that the public has been clamoring for for decades, but those evil Republicans stopped us." The thing is, for a brief period in 2009, the Democrats had the power to pass any law they wanted to, that opportunity that they had been organizing their people to make happen since 1980. They took that unique chance to do ... almost nothing they had promised on the campaign trail. And then they wondered why they lost 1/4 of their Congressional seats in one of the biggest political losses in the history of the US.
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the Democrats and Republicans are opposing political teams. But they aren't, they're the same team. The Republicans are the offense, whose job it is to increase the rights of the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. The Democrats are the defense, whose job it is to ensure the failure of any efforts by those pesky voters to try to reverse this trend. And just like football, occasionally the Republicans will have to make a defensive play, and occasionally the Democrats will score a victory for the bad guys when an opportunity presents itself, but they are absolutely on the same team. And that's why policies with the support of 70% of the voters are non-starters while they happily ram through bill after bill giving away the country to big political donors.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 28 2017, @04:25PM
Yeah, just read this:
https://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/democrat-rule-2009-2011-just-what-did-they-do-really-not-very-much-11989/ [commdiginews.com]
Interesting read.
"What were they doing from January of 2009 through January of 2011?
The 2008 elections gave Democrats total and complete control of the government. They had President Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House with an increased majority, and Reid providing over a filibuster-proof Senate with 60 votes. The Democrats could have enacted any laws they wanted. Republicans had zero power to stop them.
Democrats could have tackled inequality. Instead they passed a failed stimulus package that exacerbated the problem.
They could have raised the minimum wage unilaterally. They chose not to do so.
....
Democrats could have governed. They had their chance to lead.
...
Democrats have nothing but excuses and tired clichés for their failure to lead when they had total control."
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 28 2017, @02:15AM (13 children)
You vastly and horribly underestimate the effectiveness of an armed populace. The US military wouldn't stand a chance in hell against its citizens (even if you could get them to take up arms against their friends and family). I say that not just as a citizen but as a veteran.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 28 2017, @02:42AM (2 children)
As a veteran I respectfully disagree. (although, I hope you're right)
They had no problem doing so at Kent State in 1970.
The U.S. military is quite capable of being used as a tool of oppression.
The targets will be politicized as enemies of the state. Most will follow orders, and in such a drastic scenario (that I sincerely hope never occurs) dissenters will be arrested or shot.
Our history disagrees with Hollywood.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @06:23AM
I think there's a major difference between a one-off escalation in which it's extremely likely that some of the guardsmen genuinely felt they were being fired on by unidentified assailants within the crowd, and organized conflict approaching a civil war. And you're also looking at things from the bottom-up. I see no reason to believe that there would be no top-down dissent:
The most fundamental oath of officers is not to the president, not to congress, and not even their commanding officer or commanding general. It is to the constitution. Do you believe everybody along the chain of command would simply ignore their oaths?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @06:23PM
I have no doubt that a substantial portion of the military would be willing to act as oppressors in the US in violation of the Constitution. It may even be a majority. "I was just following orders" is a powerful and compelling argument (see: Milgram Experiment), and this is made extra so by the ability of the chain of command to frame and explain the situation in a positive light.
However, also note in the Milgram Experiment that 1/3 of the test subjects did NOT blindly follow orders, and did in fact stop. In talking to other current and former military, I have no doubt that a substantial portion of them would NOT oppress fellow Americans even if directly ordered. It is not clear if they would go into active mutiny and fight against the oppressors... and hopefully we will never need to find out.
In regard to Kent State, quoting wikipedia: "In all, at least 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using an estimate of 67 rounds of ammunition. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although John Kifner reported in The New York Times that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer."
This suggests to me that at least a substantial portion of the guardsmen, who were in clear fear of their safety and under peer pressure and pressure from command did not fire. Let's say 1/3 of them held their fire. That's still pretty substantial. And if the massacre were to have continued for 30-60 minutes, and the wounded-and-dead were to have started reaching hundreds instead of the approximately 15 which were injured and killed, then maybe they would have taken a more active role in resisting. Who can tell?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dry on Monday August 28 2017, @03:05AM
The populace is too divided, they'd be busy shooting each other. Besides a general strike would work much better. It's harder to convince a soldier to shoot an unarmed person then someone shooting at them. That's how the iron curtain came down so the authoritarians who claimed to be communist could be replaced by other authoritarians.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:47AM
I mostly agree with you - but you overstate the case. "military wouldn't stand a chance in hell" There are so many variables that none of us can possibly predict. Who is calling the shots on the military side? Is he a military genius - a modern day Sun Tzu? What are the issues? Is there a popular civilian figurehead for the military?
One thing working against good common sense, is the fact that most Americans are cowed by a uniform. Just visit the airport, and watch seemingly intelligent people submit to whatever indignities the TSA crew decides. In New York, that asinine 'Stop and Frisk' crap didn't incite an insurrection.
Depending on who, what, when, why, where, and how, the military just MIGHT beat the population down. That's a show that I don't want to see, because no one can say how it would end.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday August 28 2017, @02:36PM (7 children)
You vastly and horribly over-estimate the effectiveness of an armed populace.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every American civilian ages 16-60 has an AR-15 and knows how to use it. And let's say the US government is doing something so outrageous that a large group of this armed populace decide to take up arms in revolt. They will immediately run into all sorts of problems:
1. Most of the populace has not joined in their revolt, and will be supplying the government with information, supplies, and possibly volunteering to fight.
2. The government has a giant technological advantage that your weapons are utterly powerless against. To name a few that we know of: tanks, artillery, submarines, bombers, missiles, drones. Now, some of them, you might be able to improvise some sort of way to deal with, but you're at a substantial disadvantage.
3. Your communications, such as you have, can be easily monitored by your enemy. That means you cannot coordinate attacks in a useful way.
4. The government has established spying capabilities, and will likely have an easy time getting their spies into your rag-tag revolt. So when you're trying to plan that fantastic surprise attack on a convoy, the government now knows exactly when and where you will attack. Your revolutionaries will probably spend a fair amount of time fighting each other over who's a spy.
5. The government has established logistics that enable them to keep their troops well-supplied. You don't. When you're out of ammo, you're out of ammo. When your equipment breaks, it can't be replaced. And if you think you will be able to just buy what you need from retailers in what is now a war zone, well think again.
6. The government has a substantial civilian infrastructure for handling affairs well behind the front lines that have nothing to do with fighting the war. Keeping the power on, the streets safe from criminals, the roads in good repair, and so forth. If the war goes on for any substantial length of time, that's going to create all sorts of problems in the territory your revolutionaries have managed to control.
7. The government has international diplomatic connections that you don't. If for some reason you were getting even close to presenting a serious threat of winning, it's likely the rest of NATO would do something about that.
And if you don't understand this, consider the time when a substantial portion of the US, under the leadership of popular and well-established political and military leaders, attempted armed rebellion. They lost, badly, for all the reasons I just cited.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 28 2017, @03:06PM (4 children)
Consider carefully what would happen if only one out of ten citizens decided to make life hell on the government. Consider also that none of the military agree with the dissenters and bring their bases and weapons of war with them. Just regular people with a single deer rifle and a single box of ammo for it each. Think on it for a while. How much trouble can one person with a gun make? Now multiply that by thirty million.
There's no need to be organized. There's no need to communicate. There's no need to create supply lines. There's no need to occupy or control territory. All that has to happen for the most powerful military on earth to get its shit pushed in is for one out of every thirty dissenters to go about their daily business until they see a chance to kill one military member. No big assaults or anything. Just kill one for every thirty of them that dies or gets captured.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 28 2017, @03:35PM (3 children)
Part of my reasoning, which you are carefully leaving out of the equation, is that the other nine out of ten citizens might decide to do something about the one out of ten citizens. Like, say, calling 911 and reporting that they observed you shooting the military member you decided to take out.
Then how is it that all your gun-toting citizens know to shoot military members at every opportunity? No successful armed resistance to anything in the history of humanity has done so without organization and communication.
Your numbers assume you are up against only the active military. You aren't.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 28 2017, @04:37PM (2 children)
Other citizens don't matter once the deed's done.
Nope, no communication needs to happen. All it takes is one out of every ten (which isn't even close to half as many guns as we have) people to decide this government is finished within the same decade, and it's finished. There's nothing you can do about them beforehand because beforehand they are all perfectly law-abiding citizens.
No, my numbers assume active, reserves, and guard. They do not assume police because there aren't enough police to matter. Right now, and every cop knows this, they police the citizenry only because the citizenry wants them to. It wouldn't take even one in a hundred saying "fuck this" and every police officer in the nation would either down arms, switch sides, or die within a week.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:02PM (1 child)
ok, so it works when you are john rambo and 1 in 10 people are of a like mind. If you and they aren't, and even if you all have amassed a good amount of loot to at least get one shot out that counts, there is no respawn point after your insurrection fails. your game is over. you won't know if you won; you'll just be in a body bag.
Most people are not willing to die for a cause, unless the choices are clear that it will be worse if they did nothing and lived -- worse for themselves, worse for people they love or care for. You haven't presented that scenario effectively enough for us all to take into account motivated vigilantes into your percentage and success rate.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 28 2017, @09:30PM
Hi. Welcome to America. Home of "Give me liberty or give me death". Enjoy your stay.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 28 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)
You correctly make the point that the population is not homogenous, but you fail to realize that neither is the government. Every federal, state, county, city employee/appointee/elected official will be making their own choice about where they stand. Same goes for the military. And I assure you, as soon as the military uses their "technological advantage" and bombs US citizens on US soil, revolutionaries will be coming out of the woodwork.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:38AM
Well yes, there will be all kinds of people supporting the government shooting those evil liberals, I mean they're not even really Americans.