Aacckkkies! Sometimes we hope all the stuff we & Kevin & Diane have been uncovering re FEMA, Terrorism Overlaying Y2K, Martial Law, etc. is just Internet hype -- but NO !! No hype, rumor, paranoia involved -- just the truth. Yes, the wheels are turning for an unprecedented national emergency response to Y2K; perhaps not the best way to handle it, though. Can they even pull it off? Aren't they getting an "F" for their own remediation?

There are so many Martial Law, National Guard, Navy, Police, FEMA, White House, etc. threads this could be posted under, but since it is on MSNBC site, it must be capturing the attention/imagination of vast numbers of Americans. Imagine their total freaked astonishment if this is the first they've heard of any of this!

Does U.S. Need Anti-Terror Troops?

Does U.S. Need Anti-Terror Troops?

Pentagon, FEMA at odds over plans for Homeland Command

By Robert Windrem, NBC NEWS

A battle is looming over the issue of creating a Homelands Defense Command, a military unit responsible for managing a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The debate stems from the possibility that in a time of national crisis, a situation could evolve in which American military forces find themselves operating as a national police force patrolling the streets of U.S. cities, similar to the events portrayed in the movie The Siege.

The idea of a separate military command, first broached publicly by President Clinton in a New York Times interview on Jan. 22, was to be discussed at last years conference of Pentagon commanders-in-chief.

THE IDEA OF a separate military command, first broached publicly by President Clinton in a New York Times interview on Jan. 22, was to be discussed at last years conference of Pentagon commanders-in-chief. The proposal is being pushed by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, the No. 2 person at the Pentagon.

However, when Federal Emergency Management Administration Director James Lee Witt was briefed on the issue, he called Secretary of Defense William Cohen and asked that FEMA be removed from the agenda pending further review.

Witt told Cohen he disagreed with the notion philosophically and does not believe the military should have primary responsibility for managing the consequences of a national crisis. Witt argued that the situation should remain a civilian responsibility.

ACTING ON ORDERS
Under a presidential order issued in June 1995, FEMA has primary responsibility for consequence management after a domestic terrorist attack, while the FBI would be responsible for the investigation. Using its substantial operational and technical capabilities, the military would be called in to assist either or both agencies, and determine whether to evacuate a city, provide large-scale medical treatment, or assess the dangers of specific biological or chemical agents used in an attack.

The secret order was signed in the months following not only the Oklahoma City bombing  the most significant act of terrorism ever on American soil  but three other events that raised fears of a domestic chemical or biological weapons attack:

The Aum Shinryko cult sarin gas attack on a Tokyo subway in April 1995.

A hoax at Disneyland the following weekend in which someone made a credible threat of a similar attack there.

The admission by Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, that he had planned to include cyanide gas in the attack  but couldnt afford it.

The position of the Pentagons Hamre is that since the military will have to be called in to handle any such crisis, its role should be formalized and structured. In addition to either creating a Homeland Defense Command or renaming the Atlantic Command  another option  Hamre has talked about creating a bi-national command with Canada, a la NORAD. Since then, the proposal has been toned down to a joint task force under a four-star general, based in the Atlantic Command.

But all options remain on the table.
This weekend, FEMAs Deputy Director, R. Michael Walker, and Hamre are expected to meet to discuss the issue.

SENSITIVE TO CONCERNS
FEMA believes that such a military intrusion into managing a national disaster would send the wrong message during a time of national crisis and that the military would not have the sensitivities needed during a crisis.

An example: In 1997, the Marines wanted to send their Chemical Biological Incident Response Force into action along the Inaugural Parade route on Inauguration Day. The political types in the Pentagon stopped them, but FEMA worries that a four-star general might not understand the sensitivities.

The concerns run deep among certain factions of Americans who fear any military involvement in civil defense. When the National Guard began planning a series of exercises designed to prepare its forces for the possibility of social breakdown related to computer failures at the centurys turn on Jan. 1, 2000  the so-called Y2K bug  extreme convervatives began warning that the exercises represented a New World Order plan to install martial law. The alarm went up on the Internet, particularly circulating among so-called Patriot or militia movement Web sites.

The problems for the plan extend to other, more mundane bureaucratic turf wars as well. The first-responder program and a few others already funded have recently been moved from the Pentagon to the Justice Departments National Disaster Preparedness Office. There will be officials from various U.S. agencies working there, so Justice officials may oppose the plan as well.

However, the plans clearly are intended to address a real need. While there is no intelligence on either a specific or immediate threat of domestic terrorism, the plans are an acknowledgement that such acts can happen. After all, the best intelligence did not detect the Aum Shinryko cult, the World Trade Center bombers or Timothy McVeigh.
------------------------------------------------------------

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), February 01, 1999

Answers

This should raise a collective alarm. Has anyone noticed the:

"... When the National Guard began planning a series of exercises designed to prepare its forces for the possibility of social breakdown related to computer failures at the centurys turn on Jan. 1, 2000  the so-called Y2K bug  ..."

Think *that* will catch JQP's attention? Nothing new to YourDoneEres but average scrollers through MSNBC ... ?

mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmm

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), February 01, 1999.

Hardliner, could you comment on the above article info please? Thanks.

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 01, 1999.

Don't be gullible, don't get sucked in, and analyze everything the way Paul Milne does, (see thread) "CIO Falls Flat On His Face." It's excellent and a must to read.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), February 01, 1999.

We're the government, we're here to protect you!

Most people don't care what the government does. Look at Waco, the government is out of control. Each three letter agency has their own police force, just in case they need to use "force". Humpty Dumpty will fall again and all the Kings horses and all the Kings men won't be able to put Humpty together again!

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 01, 1999.

Leska, you are a gem for bringing this to everyone's attention.

When I first got involved in planning for y2k, I viewed it in two phases: planning for y2k glitches, and planning for the public's response to the y2k glitches. Another phase has now reared its head: planning for Big Brother's response to the people's response to y2k glitches.

It's blasphemy for this war protestor to so abuse his power over our military in this way.

Jeannie

-- jhollander (hollander@ij.net), February 01, 1999.

We're not even on the ground yet and already the jackals and the leopards are fighting over our carcass.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 01, 1999.

Jeannie: The government is always tossing sardines to it's people to see if they take the bait. If and when they take the bait they wait to see if they swallow it or spit it out. Those that swallow it are taken in, hook, line and sinker. Those that spit it out run and tell the other's that there's a predator in their waters. I plan to be the one that get's away.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), February 01, 1999.

It has come to our attention that the original article contained an error. The correct name for the new military organization is not "Homelands Defense Command", but actually "Homelandsverteidigungbefehl". Wir hoffen, da_ dieses kein Durcheinander f|r Sie verursacht.

-- YourFullName (email@ddr.ess), February 02, 1999.

By the authority vested in me by the people of the United States of America, I am, cybernetically, placing you all under arrest. This si treasoness talk and I won't stand for it! I've already arrested all of those pussy Republicans in the House and Senate for trying to kick me out and now, you're next. I am, even now, signing an executive order to force you paranoid psychos to submit. You are ordered to place your hands behind you back, walk outside and sit on your lawn until one of my Black, unmarked Helicopters can come to pick your pussy asses up! (Be patient; There are a lotta you assholes, so it might take some time; If so, please stay outside where we can see you; otherwise, we may have to fire on your candy-ass) That is all.

-- The Big Cheese (BillClinton@Whorehouse.com), February 02, 1999.

If you listen very carefully, you can hear Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington spinning in their graves as we type.

-- d (d@dgi.com), February 02, 1999.

Calm down, Leska.

Remember to research and verify. We still need a lot more puzzle pieces to "call" a trend.

Had a very interesting dinner conversation with a state police Captain after showing him the MSNBC article. Will formulate a better response in the morning ... yawn. Try to sleep well. I will because it's the prudent thing to do when the chaos appears rampant. (Better to go at it when bright-eyed and bushy tailed).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 1999.

Diane, LOL, you're always saying "Calm down" -- they need your voice-over in the tranquilizer commercials ;-D

Sleep ... sleep ... take no notice ... calm calm getting fuzzy ... fuzzy wuzzy ... zzzzzzzzzz----------------

The article was verified in most details by your & our previous confirming posts on related threads. Sometimes the very sleepy forget ;^|

Sleep well, nighty-night, forget the Y2K bug's starting to bite

Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, laughing too heartily to sleep ;^D

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

Leska,

You flatter me greatly! In answer to your request, here are some of my thoughts on the article.

The first question the article raises in my mind is: What was FEMA doing on the agenda of last years conference of Pentagon commanders-in-chief in the first place? (note that commanders-in chief is something of an oxymoron)

There is more here than is being reported on.

The head of FEMA (Witt), who already has the power & authority, says "hold the phone! That's my turf!"

("ACTING ON ORDERS - Under a presidential order issued in June 1995, FEMA has primary responsibility for consequence management after a domestic terrorist attack, while the FBI would be responsible for the investigation. Using its substantial operational and technical capabilities, the military would be called in to assist either or both agencies. . . The secret order was signed in the months following not only the Oklahoma City bombing. . .but three other events that raised fears of a domestic chemical or biological weapons attack. . .")

The Department of Defense (Hamre, a civilian appointee over the military), who seems to want FEMA's power and authority, says "Let's talk about this!"

("The position of the Pentagons Hamre is that since the military will have to be called in to handle any such crisis, its role should be formalized and structured.")

So, it looks like they're going to talk about it.

("But all options remain on the table. This weekend, FEMAs Deputy Director, R. Michael Walker, and Hamre are expected to meet to discuss the issue.")

Note that FEMA head, Witt, and Secretary of Defense, Cohen, are not going to talk directly. Instead, they have sent underlings to "discuss" the issue. This gives them both a later "out" if something is said or done that they wish to renounce or renig upon ("What my mistaken subordinate really meant was. . .).

The techniques give away the show as a "turf war" within the Clinton administration, and would only seem to be concerned with who gets to sit at what seat at the table in the farmer's house (from Orwell's Animal Farm). In fact, the reporter gives this away as well when he says, " The problems for the plan extend to other, more mundane bureaucratic turf wars as well. . . .Justice officials may oppose the plan as well." He goes on to say, "While there is no intelligence on either a specific or immediate threat of domestic terrorism, the plans are an acknowledgement that such acts can happen."

Indeed.

"The plans", are also a clear acknowledgement that several "players" want to be "in charge". In this one article, we clearly see a report of Witt of FEMA, Cohen of DoD and Reno of DoJ looking to take and hold police/military power over the civilian populace. I find that knowledge chilling but not new. It could be good news as well. Infighting among the current administration is very welcome in my book and can only serve to make that administration less able to oppress us as soon as they would like.

That cannot be good news for their masters however and I expect that the dispute will be settled by edict from above.

Remember Donna and her little sister's words? Something to the effect of, "Grab a helmet and strap in honey, it's gonna be a wild ride!" (Donna, where did you go, anyway?)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

One of my own proverbs goes like this: It's just as easy to make a little mistake as a big one. . .

Leska,

You flatter me greatly! Here are some of my thoughts on the article.

The first question the article raises in my mind is: What was FEMA doing on the agenda of last years conference of Pentagon commanders-in-chief in the first place? (note that commanders-in chief is something of an oxymoron; also an example of the too many chiefs and not enough indians concept)

There is more here than is being reported on.

The head of FEMA (Witt), who already has the power & authority, says "hold the phone! That's my turf!"

("ACTING ON ORDERS - Under a presidential order issued in June 1995, FEMA has primary responsibility for consequence management after a domestic terrorist attack, while the FBI would be responsible for the investigation. Using its substantial operational and technical capabilities, the military would be called in to assist either or both agencies. . . The secret order was signed in the months following not only the Oklahoma City bombing. . .but three other events that raised fears of a domestic chemical or biological weapons attack. . .")

The Department of Defense (Hamre, a civilian appointee over the military), who seems to want FEMA's power and authority, says "Let's talk about this!"

("The position of the Pentagons Hamre is that since the military will have to be called in to handle any such crisis, its role should be formalized and structured.")

So, it looks like they're going to talk about it.

("But all options remain on the table. This weekend, FEMAs Deputy Director, R. Michael Walker, and Hamre are expected to meet to discuss the issue.")

Note that FEMA head, Witt, and Secretary of Defense, Cohen, are not going to talk directly. Instead, they have sent underlings to "discuss" the issue. This gives them both a later "out" if something is said or done that they wish to renounce or renig upon ("What my mistaken subordinate really meant was. . .).

The techniques give away the show as a "turf war" within the Clinton administration, and would only seem to be concerned with who gets to sit at what seat at the table in the farmer's house (from Orwell's Animal Farm). In fact, the reporter gives this away as well when he says, " The problems for the plan extend to other, more mundane bureaucratic turf wars as well. . . .Justice officials may oppose the plan as well." He goes on to say, "While there is no intelligence on either a specific or immediate threat of domestic terrorism, the plans are an acknowledgement that such acts can happen."

Indeed.

"The plans", are also a clear acknowledgement that several "players" want to be "in charge". In this one article, we clearly see a report of Witt of FEMA, Cohen of DoD and Reno of DoJ looking to take and hold police/military power over the civilian populace. I find that knowledge chilling but not new. It could be good news as well. Infighting among the current administration is very welcome in my book and can only serve to make that administration less able to oppress us as soon as they would like.

That cannot be good news for their masters however and I expect that the dispute will be settled by edict from above.

Remember Donna and her little sister's words? Something to the effect of, "Grab a helmet and strap in honey, it's gonna be a wild ride!" (Donna, where did you go, anyway?)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

I have no comment on what it could mean, but here are two more pieces to the puzzle. Notice the first and last message by me on the following thread.

The first message is about a Y2K meeting that was supposed to take place at the White House on Thursday, January 21. The last message on the thread by me is from early Friday, January 22 about news to be released later that day...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000OYG

"White House Y2K meeting on Thursday, Jan. 21, 1999"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 02, 1999.

Another piece of the puzzle is this thread...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetcg-msg.tcl?msg_id=000OOI

"Resignation in government Information Processing"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner, that's a slight corruption of Bette Davis's line in. . . (oops, lost the film) of "Buckle your seat belts, folks. It's going to be a bumpy night."

chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 02, 1999.

You guys are starting to sound like me! Been watching these goonieguys for 2.5 decades and have been labled "your crazy" by many. Bankers...buearacrats...Insurance weasels...it is all very enslaving.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner, thank you THANK YOU so much for your comments. Ashton & I know nothing about military issues. We are nurses trained to "observe variance" and this type of news seems so different that it catches our attention and we're not sure what it means to those well-versed in workings of govt. We're watching all the puzzle pieces pointing to similar outcomes and to say it is startling is far too mild a description.

Your extremely well-written commentary is immensely helpful. (As usual :) To have such a disciplined, well-informed, concisely articulate navigator as Hardliner is a much-appreciated blessing.

When we first approached our FEMA contacts in July re Y2K, we were struck primarily by #1: the pooh-pooh wave-off; and #2: the bristling turf hands-off back-leg kick.
So the knee-jerk initial convulsions are still a'twitching higher up the chain.

This spastic turf sniff 'n growl-around ritual gander-step lets me conclude once again that few DC PP Honchos actually will Get It in time to avert disaster. Reluctant reactionary chain still awk-grooving deeper rut of bureaucratic slithers. But the image of the hatching serpent is becoming clearer to the horrified chickadees.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

Kevin, knew you'd see the puzzle pieces interlocking and starting to haze an image! Thanks for your links. It looks like more & more pieces will be popping out of the box. Glad you like to jigsaw ;^J

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

At least they are meeting. (Not the one we want ... yet.) -- Diane

Massachusetts Municipal Association Hosts Y2K Roundtable With FEMA Director James Lee Witt

http://www.fema.org/reg-i/1999/r1_n01.htm

Full FEMA Coverage of Y2K Issues

Boston, February 1, 1999 -- Last week FEMA Director James Lee Witt visited Boston to talk with state and local officials about Y2K planning. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hosted a Y2K roundtable discussion on Jan. 26. In attendance were leaders from federal, state, local and voluntary agencies, along with members from the public, private and non-profit communities.

The Y2K round table in Boston was led by FEMA Director, James Lee Witt is the first initiative in a series of regional and national Y2K workshops and exercises scheduled to begin in February.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 1999.

Here's another article, popped outta our home page, from ABC News:

Terror Goes Online

Terror Goes Online

Security Experts Target Cyberspace as New Battlefield

(U.S. Air Force Maj. Larry Chodko demonstrates a computer to be used in the peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia. Security experts point out that online and electronic threats to national security are mounting. (AP Photo/Greg Gibson)

By David Phinney, National Correspondent, ABCNEWS.com

... Prank-loving teens are one thing, but the U.S. government is waking to the fact that terrorists and spies can take advantage of the same technology. Fighting drug smuggling and illegal immigration may be simple, experts say, compared to policing the porous international boundaries of the Internet.

President Clinton announced on Jan. 22 that his 1999 budget includes $10 billion to combat terrorism  $1.46 billion of which will go to protect critical computer systems from cyber and other attacks.

That's 40 percent more than we were spending two years ago, Clinton noted.

Easily Cracked Code
No nation can challenge us with conventional weapons on a conventional battlefield, notes veteran journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, who recently co-authored a report on cyberterrorism for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But new threats come from those seeking to compromise both military and civilian infrastructure, which are now one in the same.

The explosive spread of the Internet brings greater vulnerability not only to military and intelligence systems, the report notes, but to telecommunications systems, railroads, air traffic control centers, power centers, financial data transmissions and any other systems connected by a computer network.

More often than not, these computer systems run on commercially released software with coding that is easy to crack. An electronic Pearl Harbor could be in the making  and occur without warning.

Its not like collecting information on capability and intent by watching the deployment of missiles and tanks, observed Deputy Secretary of Defense Christopher Mellon, during a Jan. 26 conference on cyberterrorism in Washington, D.C. Attackers require less knowledge as the [software] tools become more sophisticated, he said.
What do you do when the technology has become so ubiquitous?

Clinton Ups the Anti-Terrorism Ante
Announcing his anti-hacker efforts, Clinton noted the havoc caused last spring when a satellite malfunction disabled pagers, ATMs, credit card systems and television networks all around the world.

We must be ready  ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services  or military assets, warned Clinton. More and more, these critical systems are driven by, and linked together with, computers, making them more vulnerable to disruption.

Some call such systems vulnerability inevitable. Other than set up firewalls that may threaten the civil liberties of online users, says Dr. Ivan Eland, a defense policy expert with the CATO Institute, theres little that governments can do to protect national security in the Information Age.

We can putter around the margins, Eland says, but it strikes me as an intractable problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

You folks are jumping to conclusions. Do you really expect the government to lay down and die in the face of escalating terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and a global computer reboot? Are you advocating anarchy? Do you want to see the US fall as Paul Milne does? What is wrong with using the National Guard to protect during y2k? What is wrong with calling out the military if a terrorist faction "declares war" on US soil?

Now before you begin your flamefest, recognize that I am armed to the teeth and will defend my right to liberty until the death. But the government must do what it can to combat what it sees as a national emergency in the making. I am totally opposed to their disinformation campaign, but that's what they've decided to do and now the cards will fall where they may. I think it is being done more out of ignorance than any other sinister motive. (I should know I work with these bozos). The potential for abuse is there as always but what others on this forum aren't taking into account is that

1. almost everyone knows about the antics of the past century's dictators and the current leaders will catch hell trying to pull something like this over in today's day and times.

2. There are not enough troops to "take over" America. And making snitches of each and every neighbor in exchange for food and toilet paper will be too impractical.

3. There is enough "armed resistance" to make any takeover attempt futile.

Although the scenario predicted by Hardiner, E Coli, and Leska is not out of the question, I see things as more of a chaotic 1930's style depression with a lot of death and suffering. Sorry Chittum, no NWO this time around in my estimation.

We are going to have plenty of problems to deal with in the next few years, so prepare to deal with them and stop getting overly paranoid about the military and the coming martial law. Canada and UK have accepted that fate, why should Americans be different? Or is it true that the Yourdon forum is just a cover for militia groups?

-- a (a@a.a), February 02, 1999.

Huh? aaaa?

I haven't predicted any scenarios at all! Read more carefully. I'm stunned by all the news showing the US govt & military is deliberately not-mentioning Y2K and is instead putting all their efforts under the "terrorism" banner. On many threads I've expressed legitimate concern about terrorists and have said that I'm worried that they will take advantage of Y2K chaos. I'm not anti-military; I've been asking for military-experienced posters to help me understand the news reports.

I'm certainly not anti-govt or anti-military; in fact I spend half my time defending FEMA as a great training org for disaster preparedness! But I *am* really blown away by what I see as bald-faced lies coming out of the govt in their inability to directly honestly address the Y2K issue calmly and factually to the American people.

I for one would be very relieved if somebody credible gave a special national address and said, "My fellow Americans, Y2K is going to cause uncomfortable problems, and you all must become prepared for infrastructure disruptions. We will be having martial law starting in November 1999 to ensure orderly coping with this man-made disaster which we will overcome with the peaceful cooperation and ingenuity and preparedness of all the American people."

aaaa, what I am looking for is honesty, openness, and facts.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

An electric utility guy with nuclear background being appointed for "sustainable development?" An oxymoron. Just curious and interested in what "other" appointments da Pres is making.

a -- No, Yourdon's forum is not a cover for the militia, more like an information feed used by the DoD, et. al. I don't consider myself paranoid, just an information navigator trying to see where the puzzles lie. We can all agree that some "strange" stuff is going on.

BTW, in conversations at dinner with that state police Captain, he mentioned that they've sworn an oath to the Consitution too. He mentioned the Constitution prohibits having a "standing army" on U.S. soil. It is up to the State's to request assistance from the Fed's in the event of terrorist or other "related" actions, and when they do, the Fed's are technically under the jurisdiction of the state police. He did say that the Fed's ARE taking on more and more "responsibilities" than their original charter's granted. The place to go for clarification, is the Congress of the United States. He also alluded to the idea that IF the military abused their power in a crisis situation, there are a lot of "men in blue" that they would have to answer to.

Another comment made, in a terriorist situation, the Fed's tend to let the state police forces become the "blue canaries." -- Diane

http://libraey.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases.cgi?date=1&briefing=3

February 1, 1999

PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES E. LINN DRAPER JR. TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

The President today announced his intent to appoint E. Linn Draper Jr. to serve as a Member of the President?s Council on Sustainable Development.

Mr. E. Linn Draper, of Dublin, Ohio, is Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Electric Power Company, Inc., located in Ohio. Mr. Draper also serves as President of Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and its subsidiary, Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation. From 1979 to 1992, Mr. Draper served in several capacities at Gulf States Utilities Company in Texas, ending his service there as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. He has also served as Associate Professor and Director of the Nuclear Engineering Program at the University of Texas. Mr. Draper received his B.A. and a B.S. from Rice University, and a Ph.D. in nuclear science and engineering from Cornell University.

The President?s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established by an Executive Order in June 1993 for the purpose of advising the President on matters involving sustainable development.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 1999.

a,

I've tried very hard to make it clear that whatever conclusions I arrive at are guesses. Terms such as "crapshoot" come immediately to mind. . .

Having qualified my response, let me answer your questions.

No, I do not expect the government to lay down and die. I expect the government to fall down and twitch until it's dead because its cybernetic nervous system has gone haywire. It looks very much to me as if not enough of that nervous system will be viable to keep the organism of government alive much longer. If the government sees the same thing, there is no telling what it may do while awaiting such an affliction.

I am most assuredly not advocating anarchy, but I expect it. It might be wise also to point out that anarchy is not the same thing as chaos. The behavior of the population will determine whether or not we see riots, etc.

I do not want to see the US fall, but I would like to see it change. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, without qualification. Currently, it is little more than a 200-odd year old rag under glass as far as the federal (or any other) government is concerned. I want to see it restored to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land. I want the practice of political appointees telling me what the Framers meant to cease. The Framers were quite erudite and precise, thank you. I want the unconstitutional practices and laws of this government to go away. I have pledged my life to the Constitution; not merely my death.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with the National Guard or the military doing what they are tasked to do under that Constitution and I have placed my views here plainly for all to see.

You say, "almost everyone knows about the antics of the past century's dictators and the current leaders will catch hell trying to pull something like this over in today's day and times."

In my opinion, you make the error that we all do at one time or another of judging others by yourself. Sure, you know and I know and so do a lot of other folks, but Hitler laid it all out for everyone too, when he wrote Mein Kampf. Sure, the information is out there and no one's hiding it, but the point is that no one is paying attention! Most of our population is functionally illiterate! Do you honestly think that all those people who live from paycheck to paycheck have the time, let alone the inclination, to follow the history of totalitarianism in the 20th century? I do not think that they have.

You say, "There are not enough troops to "take over" America. And making snitches of each and every neighbor in exchange for food and toilet paper will be too impractical."

I agree completely with this.

You say, "There is enough "armed resistance" to make any takeover attempt futile."

If you'll change that to read, 'There is enough "armed resistance" to make any takeover attempt extremely bloody and fatal to both sides', I will agree with that also.

Your, ". . .chaotic 1930's style depression with a lot of death and suffering", may be just as likely as any other scenario, but I think we must agree that we simply don't have enough valid and accurate information to make anything like a certain determination.

Your advice that, "We are going to have plenty of problems to deal with in the next few years, so prepare to deal with them and stop getting overly paranoid about the military and the coming martial law", is sound advice and I agree with it and have repeatedly done so on this forum, although I wouldn't and haven't characterized martial law as "fate". The term "fate" has too much of a negative connotation to suit me. I, too, think any NWO is out of luck this time around. If things get as out of kilter as it looks to me that they will, everyone will be pretty much equally disadvantaged. E. Coli and I went back and forth on this point a while back. I haven't changed my mind.

As for militia groups, I can only speak for myself. The one I belong to is named The United States Marine Corps.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner, you're a cool guy. At least here's one man we'll never meet in the Chestnut Tree Cafe.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 02, 1999.

Ooops, I forgot, as Hardliner said, most of the population if functionally illiterate. I'll give a hint to the cafe reference:

-Under the spreading Chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me.

There they lie and here lie we,

Under the spreading Chestnut tree.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 02, 1999.

I dunno RCat,

Think we might owe Hardliner a great Caffe Latte. (Not familiar with that other cafe) ... Starbuck's however, is my kind'a place, especially when coupled with a Barnes and Nobel bookstore, and spare time to study great literary works, and chat.

All things come full circle.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 1999.

The following lines, set in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, conclude Orwell's masterpiece 1984

Two gin-scented tears tricked down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 02, 1999.

There is an impending bactriological threat to 120 U.S. cities, according to Mr. Harris, ex-CIA biowarfare expert interviewed by Gary North's publisher. I can only include an excerpt here. "Are You Prepared To Survive The Coming Terrorist Biological(Germ) Warfare attacks On American cities? From Supplement to Remnant Review 1999 By Bruce Tippery , Publisher" "Please read this letter carefully. It contains one of the most urgent warnings I have ever published. It is a code red uegent alert. I am not exaggerating in the least when I say your very life may depend upon the little-known information and advance intelligence warnings revealed in this letter." "...The Clinton Administration is quietly preparing for an all-out terrorist biological (germ) warfare attack on 120 major U.S. cities. Drills are already being conducted. Officials in each of these 120 major cities are now being briefed. But instead of teaching Americans how to survive the expected assault, the Clinton Administration is keeping U.S. citizens in the dark ..." You may read the full article for yourself and know how to protect your family at http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/villa/3388. Does anyone have that 130 pages manual by Duncan Long on how to protect yourself from bio-warfare?

-- James (truthfulsilas@usa.net), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner: thanks for the clarification. Now if we can just get E into his straight jacket (just kidding E)...

I guess my point is that I am a y2k extremist but I am on the fence concerning NWO stuff. I see a lot of disorganized conspiracies and a lot of synchronicity but no firm evidence that the "Nazis" are preparing for a return to power. And this is revealing: on E's Beginning of the End thread, Bill Solorzano asked:

... The one thing I would like someone to explain to me is this: Why would any power mad person want to reign over a population of slaves who cannot pay taxes or feed themselves without the state. Slavery is a very expensive business. Prisons, Camps, Guards, food, medicine, its an enormous undertaking. Isn't it better to rule over a bunch of folks who work hard and fork over 50% of their earnings to the government in taxes?...

Runway Cat responded by quoting Orwell's 1984:

Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. ... Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of our own choosing.

I don't buy it. That was that book, and what's happening now is this book. We are writing this book. Let's make it exciting, but with a better ending than 1984.

-- a (a@a.a), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner: I see you are a marine. I work with you guys, and other "folks". I too hate to see the Constitution trampled and it disturbs me to no end that the military is sometime implicated in somewhat subversive plots.

What is your opinion of the pilot and navigator of the Prowler aircraft that clipped the Italian gondola cable? Did you see that crap on 60 minutes about how the USMC knew the cable was not on the map, but continued to blame the crew? It sounds to me like a blatant attempt on the part of the General involved to shift blame from the armed services and onto the shoulders of these brave young men. Is that how you see it?

-- a (a@a.a), February 02, 1999.

But can they pull it off? The military is hardly immune to Y2K disasters. I keep reading about Plan B contingencies failing in both public & private sectors. Example (not Y2K):

U.S. Targeting Terrorism With More Funds

"... The first Foreign Emergency Support Teams from Washington to Kenya experienced delays of 13 hours and did not arrive in Nairobi until 40 hours after the bombings, the commission found. While one team departed within six hours, its military aircraft broke down in Rota, Spain, and caused a 15-hour delay before a backup could arrive, the commission found. Another team bound for Dar es Salaam was delayed from taking off for 24 hours because, with the military's designated plane already headed for Nairobi, a substitute could not be found, the commission said.

Another Air Force plane loaded with additional support personnel broke down in Sicily two days after the bombings and was delayed for eight hours. And when a unit of so-called FAST Marines was dispatched from Nairobi to Bahrain to help guard the embassy there, their plane broke down as well.

... But probably no single provision in the supplemental appropriation illustrates the government's rapidly growing commitment to counterterrorism than a domestic preparedness grant program run by the Justice Department for training and equipping local fire departments to respond to terrorist attacks.

Two years ago, the program did not exist. Last year, $12 million was appropriated. This year, it is $135 million. And next year? The budget released yesterday includes $171 million, an increase of almost 27 percent. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 02, 1999.

Didn't you paranoid candy-asses hear me?!?!? I just arrested you assbytes. So what are you doing sitting there, composing your messages for? Go give your sorry asses up! Don't make me come in there! That is all.

-- Bill "His royal largeness" Clinton (BillClinton@Monica'splace.com), February 02, 1999.

Drat Billy boy .. the article's "disappeared of the S.F. Gate website.

There was an article about Hillary and Bill having a Millennium evening at the White House, Y2K aside. At the end of it Bill was quoted referring to himself as "...a walking apostle of hope."

I never laughed so hard!!! Should'a posted it while I had the chance.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 1999.

Qquestion I have, if I remember my military science classes, is WHY do we need a "Homeland Command" when we already have in place CONTNENTAL COMMAND? Unless I missed something, the mechanics of Contenental Command is in place and has been since the years between WWI and WWII. Maybe Mr Hamre isn't happy with the role that Contenental Command (or any current incarnation) would play in Y2K and we're seeing a power struggle for who's going to lead in any post Y2K-dance.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 02, 1999.

a,

I'm not at all sure that I'd answer you as openly if you were a stranger that I'd met in real space, but this isn't real space, it's cyber space and although I cannot for the life of me explain all the reasons why it's different, it is.

You asked for my opinion on the ski lift incident in Italy. I have to tell you up front that I do not have any specific information about that tragedy and I do not know any of the people involved. Neither did I see the 60 Minutes show that you referred to.

Most Naval Aviators (Navy and Marine fliers who operate off of aircraft carriers) have a way about them that is very closely related to a death-wish that is pointed toward life. I do not mean to exclude fliers of the other services; it is simply that I have not known many of them well enough to speak with any authority on this point regarding them. This trait allows you to grasp your own fear and ride it, force it, bend it to your will and make it take you where you want to go. It is not courage, although some outsiders mistakenly perceive it to be that. It is more like a willingness to pay the price for something that you want very badly. There are many ways and places that a man can find himself--or lose himself. One place that is different than any other that I know of, is aboard a naval aircraft on "final" to a carrier. You can lose yourself there, on many levels, but if you find yourself, you have found something that you cannot find anywhere else. It's an accomplishment on a clear day with following seas; it's your worst nightmare at night in "the goo" with a flaky hydraulic system. At best, you feel like a god. At worst, they couldn't drive a straight pin up your ass with a ten pound sledge. You have to really, really want to do it to keep coming back for more. All Navy and Marine aviators must CQ (Carrier Qualify) at least once a year. Both the pilot and the navigator you asked about were this breed of man.

Now, each time that you climb into a military warplane and take off, you achieve near absolute Authority, or control, to do whatever you are capable of. As I'm sure you're aware, the other side of that coin is Responsibility. That responsibility too, is absolute. One is the price for the other and the other is the reward for the price.

All that separates any of us from whatever comes next is a single heartbeat, and almost none of us ever know which one it will be. One thing fliers do know is that when they climb into that cockpit, the chances of experiencing that particular heartbeat increase exponentially. The Angel of Death that Leska speaks of is always a fellow crew member. Remember that movie, God is my Co-Pilot? That's Him. It just goes with the territory.

As I said, I do not know either of the Marines who were on that aircraft, but I know, without doubt, that either of them would have instantly "bought the farm" rather than allow those innocent people to die, had they been given the choice. I know, without doubt, that they did not have that choice. Leska will understand; the Angel simply came for the others. He does not ask for your advice and he does not brook any interference. Why He left the two Marines to "face the music" is no more knowable than why He took the others. You may be sure, however, that the two Marines knew the "stakes" before they took off. If the Angel had taken them, they would have been ready. I'm sure that they wish it hadn't happened, but I'm also sure that they acknowledge responsibility. That too, just goes with the territory.

Now the real question here is: What could possibly be so rewarding or so valuable or desirable that anyone would want it that badly and agree to those conditions to have it?

The best answer to that question that I know of is the following poem. You will either understand it or you won't but it is still the best answer that I can give.

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds -- and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of -- wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long, delirious burning blue I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew. And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

- High Flight By John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner,

Will you participate in the confiscation of weapons in this benevolent martial law situation? Will you participate in house-to-house searches for guns or gold bullion or radios or any other possessions newly-declared "contraband?" If you don't follow such orders, you are not exactly "Semper Fidelis" (to the Corps) are you? If you do follow such orders, you are trampling the Constitution, not to mention murdering those who resist.

Don't tell me this isn't what happens when the military takes over, especially if a real or staged "terrorist" event of sufficient magnitude occurs. These provisions, as well as the "drafting of civilian labor" (outright slavery, China or Burma-style) are in the existing E.O.s, which have been law for some time now. Don't tell me that Marine Corps Generals will be deciding this kind of policy. That power is what Reno, Cohen et al are fighting over now. The Corps is a weapon, and it goes where it's pointed. If you don't you may be a militia, but you are not the Corp. So will you do it(confiscate goods, execute or imprison those who claim their 1st and 2nd amendment rights during your "emergency")? If so, for how long? A year? Ten years? A hundred? Are you really "Semper Fidelis?" If not, where do you draw the line?

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 02, 1999.

All I can say is, this is one hell of a thread

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 02, 1999.

"...accept the coming martial law?" WHAT?! If this isn't incremental acclimatization, I don't know what is. God help us all.

-- Spidey (senses@tingling.com), February 02, 1999.

1) Diane: You ref'd "Blue canaries" without the explanation that anyone who hasn't been through HAZMAT training needs to understand. this info is: At the scene of a HAZMAT incident, it is nearly axiomatic that the police officer who responds first will, unwittingly, get to indicate the radius of incapacitation by approaching the scene until (s)he falls to the ground, functioning as a miner's canary used to indicate the presence of poison gas in the mine.

2) Hardliner:

Thanks for the poem. I suspect, however, this is another of those questions which both you and I have answered with "If you had to ask the question, you can not understand the answer!"

Chuck, semi frustrated non-flier who is married to a VERY frustrated non-flier.

PS This IS one h*ll of a thread, is RIGHT!

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 02, 1999.

I dunno, Spidey, is fear the answer ? I keep thinking there could be a valuable lesson in y2k, even martial law might be some kind of learning experience for us. Has anybody read the Jane Roberts book The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events ? Well, if you don't like the New Age, maybe the words from Tolstoy below are the lesson:

And the angel's body was bared, and he was clothed in light so that eye could not look on him; and his voice grew louder, as though it came not from him but from heaven above. And the angel said:

'I have learnt that all men live not by care for themselves, but by love.

'It was not given to the mother to know what her children needed for their life. Nor was it given to the rich man to know what he himself needed. Nor is it given to any man to know whether, when evening comes, he will need boots for his body or slippers for his corpse.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner: Separate comment/query ref E's comment. There are going to be a LOT of gutsy guys and gals trying to recomcile the oath and the orders if they are given the time. care to speculate on the "proper" method of questioning orders, and what you feel might be the chain followed in this (type of) case???

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 02, 1999.

The fundamental problem is that the Framers (and most of our forebears) wisely separated military and civilian functions from one another when it came to internal affairs in this country. Some in the south might argue that Abe was not in this group, BTW.

Arguably, we have long since crossed the point of no return in scrambling this wisdom. Where I live, heavily armed local, state, NYC and EPA police already guard the reservoirs that provide 90% of NYC water.

The contradiction, I feel, in Hardliner's position is not appropriate military tasking under the Constitution, which most of us would support, but that we face para-military operations in the states that were not so tasked, and I'm not thinking of Waco, but ordinary life, reservoirs, for instance.

On the other hand, those who point out that many in the military dislike this as much as anyone and serve honorably according to the Constitution are right-on. The real 64K question is that we don't know how individuals or units will react if/when called upon to control their fellow citizens post-Y2K. We can speculate, but we don't know.

We also don't know how different types of units (local police, state police, National Guard, military) will react to one another.

We are too linear, though understandably so, in our thinking:

Using the National Guard to help the citizenry post-Y2K is, at least in principle and precedence, totally appropriate, although some might try to turn that use to nefarious purposes (inappropriate). Using the military internally would be utterly inappropriate, though specific units might perform honorably towards citizens.

Y2K is preeminently about chaos/confusion, worldwide. A mix of worldwide forces (I mean that symbolically here, not literally, though it includes that) will variously act benevolently, others tyrannically. Some who act benevolently will unwittingly pave the way towards tyranny. Some who act tyrannically will do so in actual defense of "republic"an principles.

Remember what we're potentially talking about in the dark case:

200M to 1.5B dead worldwide within 12-18 months, infrastructure crippled, communications intermittent, ........

Is there a place for the exercise of extraordinary powers in such a disaster? You betcha. This is where I think a is coming from. The constitutional crisis is that we do not have the correct context any longer for exercising those powers rightly, if indeed we have had them at all since the Civil War/Rebellion between the states. This is why e's fears are so legitimate.

Factor in the global issues: against the backdrop of regionalization and localization will inevitably come the exercise of power by elites that see an opportunity for NWO to fulfill their power lust, pace Runway Cat/1984 ("never again should the world suffer in this way. We must stand together as one world from this point forward.")

Does our federal government (do our citizens?) understand the constitutional basis and the moral imperative for resisting this at all costs? There are few Democrat or Republican politicians who do.

In a best case, American (and perhaps Canadian and Australian/New Zealand) localities/regions will band together to fight this dynamic. In a worst case, there will be a decade or two of noble local experiments that are overlooked as irrelevant while NWO consolidates around reassembled technology/telecom until it is ready to smash them.

I am sorry to say that most of the happier TBOTWAWKI hopes seem ridiculously naive to me, at least as a first post-TEOTWAWKI result. Fifty years from now? Maybe. If the remaining pieces of the nations that understand liberty stand together, we have a shot.

And (boy, am I really saying this?), we actually do need many of the people we have each become polarized from in this country over the past 20 years (Clinton+Reagan types) with us, providing they see the stakes. Linear labels? No. Y2K is about a new configuration, based on an old American ideal. This NG illustrates how this configuration can form around wildly disparate individuals.

The real enemy, guys, is a global King George, not the Tories in Washington. Yes, we may need to oppose (and we are, aren't we?) the local Tories steadfastly, but let's keep our eyes on the target ... and hope that many whom we think Tories wake up. I'm not optimistic but stranger things have happened .... and stranger things than we can imagine will happen over the next few years.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 02, 1999.

E.,

I've gotta tell ya, your head's stuck! Now, I'll do my very best to "unstick" it if you'll listen to me. I promise not to lie to you. I swear that I've not lied anywhere on this forum and I have no intention of starting. It's not my bag. Once I tell you the truth, as best I know it, and give you what facts that I am certain of, the monkey's on your back. You have to decide if I'm telling you the truth and take it or leave it. That's the best that I can do.

I will not participate in any general confiscation of weapons from American citizens, whether in a "benevolent martial law situation" or otherwise. The Oath that I took precludes that. . . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. . .to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. . .to obey appropriate orders. . .

These are not just words to me, E., they are the way I have chosen to live my life and the way my fellows have chosen to live theirs. You think you've seen religious fanatics? Ha! You have no idea how fanatical Jarheads are. Fanaticism is our stock in trade. Semper Fidelis means "always faithful", not "stupid, ignorant of what we've promised to do and will do whatever we're told"! Semper Fidelis means "always faithful" to our oath to the Constitution. It means that you can and should count on us.

If you think any jackass with a bent for ruling America will simply order us to, "take all their guns so they can't fight back" and "dismantle America for me so that I can be a king" will get any help from me, you're very, very wrong. I know that the vast majority of my fellows will not participate either. We didn't sign on to take it apart, we signed on to keep it intact! And if any American citizen wants me to "murder him", he'd better be ready to point a loaded weapon at me!

I sent a Christmas card and a letter to a young Marine "Buck" Sergeant last year. He is the son of a heavy duty Marine that I've been fortunate enough to have had for a friend for over 30 years. This young Sergeant spent Christmas with the fleet in the Med last year. He wears the Navy Achievement Medal which he earned in Operation Urban Warrior. Yeah, the "invade America's cities" bit. They taught him to make contour maps of radiation. They taught him about "weapons of mass destruction". They taught him to read dosimeters. They taught him to use geiger counters and chemical and biological detection and protective equipment. There was no schooling on "where the citizens might hide guns". There was no schooling on "how to round up citizens". E., I've known this guy since I piggybacked him around in his diapers. Are you afraid of him?

If the Marine Corps or the military in general wanted to "take over", they could have and would have done so already! This is not rocket science E. Marine Generals do not have to make policy, it's already made! It starts out, "We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's what I'm telling you that you can count on E. That's where I draw the line. Take it or leave it. It's, "On my Honor".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner ---- will the Marines resist other US military or para-military units domestically if they turn rogue, based on political orders? Or do you consider the entire idea of US military units turning on citizens our soil an oxymoron? This is a serious question, of course.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner: I asked:

It sounds to me like a blatant attempt on the part of the General involved to shift blame from the armed services and onto the shoulders of these brave young men. Is that how you see it?

You said:

"Now the real question here is: What could possibly be so rewarding or so valuable or desirable that anyone would want it that badly and agree to those conditions to have it?"

So your premise is that the courtmartial these guys will be subjected to in the coming weeks is more of a "tribunal" in which it is understood that the "warriors" have to be the fall guys because it was their responsibility to not accidentally hit the wire?

BTW I think they are being tried for negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.

-- a (a@a.a), February 02, 1999.

a,

The word, "blame" was your choice. I suggest that it is imprecise and somewhat inaccurate. Here's why.

Negligent Homicide and Dereliction of Duty are both crimes by definition. They are both crimes of omission rather than crimes of comission. Basically that means that no one did anything on purpose, they just didn't pay attention well enough and screwed up. These offenses are more properly described as being someone's responsibility rather than being "blamed" on someone. It's a subtle distinction, I know, but one that is important.

If someone is "to blame" for something that they did, the penalty is more or less determined by how much blame attaches to the actor. If someone is responsible for something that went wrong, the penalty is more or less determined by the results or consequences of whatever went wrong.

In the case of a military flier, the responsibility is absolute. No excuses allowed in the "pay attention" department. This is not to say that circumstances beyond his control cannot explain the consequences. For example, if it could be shown that the aircraft experienced a mechanical failure that was unforseeable, no one would be held accountable.

Unfortunately, this incident is pretty much like the guy who runs over a child who runs out into the street, with an automobile. Expected or not, you promised the State when they gave you a Driver's License that you'd do your best not to hit anything. Negligent Homicide with a Vehicle will still get you a penalty.

The Court Martial is a Trial to determine if the "driver" (and here, his navigator also) did everything that they should have to avoid the accident.

These two Marines are not "fall guys" in any sense of the word. They are fliers who accepted absolute responsibility for their actions and are now being examined to see whether or not those actions were all that they should have been. If they are truly "thrown to the wolves" by the politicos, there will be incredible resentment and eventual payback. The Navy and the Corps look out for their own.

The concept of absolute responsibility is not uncommon in American jurisprudence. For example, if you have a swimming pool, the law considers it an "attractive nuisance" and there is a limited set of actions that you can take to prevent your liability if a child drowns in it. Likewise, some activities are considered, at law, so inherently dangerous that absolute liability attaches. Blasting (as with dynamite and tree stumps) comes to mind and there are certainly other examples.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

Hardliner ---- Still looking for answer to my question above?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 02, 1999.

>>If you think any jackass with a bent for ruling America will simply order us to, "take all their guns so they can't fight back" and "dismantle America for me so that I can be a king" will get any help from me, you're very, very wrong.

I think you know this is an oversimplification. At this point, all it's taken to effectively gut the 4th amendment has been a little drug hysteria. Police arming themselves with "civil seizure" booty was one of the things the revolutionary war was fought over - now it's the order of the day. How many ex-marines do you know who are now in law enforcement? I know two in our local "DARE" program, which is funded by civil seizure property theft. Not big Constitutionalists, those two. What will happen with a "terrorist" attack on a major city? Let's say that Omaha is a smoking radioactive pit; it's gone. Or Seattle. Or Miami or New York. At that point, it's a question of what part of the Consitution, if any, will remain standing as the people clamor for order, and Cohen, Reno, or whomever fight over the emergency powers that will doubtless be in full effect. No one, Marines included, is going to miss the constitution much, if America is under attack. Or perceived to be under attack. The choice they force us to will be obvious.

What is a Marine's job? To kill. You can plant trees or kiss babies or mop up radiation, but, as a marine, you are first and foremost a killing machine (darned fine ones, I might add). Why send a killing machine, an "Urban Warrior" into the scene of a DOMESTIC NBC attack? Who are they going to fight? Why not train FBI for this, or create a civilian response team of, I don't know, maybe SCIENTISTS and MEDICAL personnel, to assess contamination, decon, etc.. Boy Scouts could do it. Why not create clean-up teams CONSTITUTIONALLY, State-by-State? Same goes for Y2k-paralysis. No, you big ugly bastards (and I mean that in a good way, H.), diapers or not, are there to keep US in line, as we clamor desperately for water, and medical treatment, and answers. You're there because Cohen and Reno and FEMA are afraid of US. They're afraid of what we might do when the Federal Government fails us in it's very reason for existence - to "provide for the common defense." And the Marines, under those cicumstances, will do what they're told. And that's going to mean rounding up arms, and radios, and "profiteers," and drafting civilian corpse-disposal teams at gunpoint, controlling the radio and t.v. stations to prevent "sedition", and all the other provisions that are in the Emergency Orders (as well as keeping order and preventing riots, which I won't argue with, but which the National Guard and other cops can do - Constitutionally). The presence of a standing army on U.S. soil will set a precedent. When the smoke clears, and all the "bad guys" -dissenters- are flushed out and locked up, another chunk will have been hacked out of the Constitution, and that will take us closer to being an obedient trade block of labor-units and not a nation of free people.

I accept and honor your personal pledge, Hardliner. But I think the Marines are going to be manipulated into cicumstances that make them choose between the betrayal of their Constitutional Oath and the real threat of chaos. I think they're going to be tricked into betraying the very thing so many Marines died to protect in WWII. I think the forces at work are willing to sacrifice a city or three to set this in motion, much as they sacrificed the people in Oklahoma City to advance their anti-constitutional "anti-terrorist" trial balloon. Even if they don't, there is Y2k. And I think the majority of Marines, if not You and Diapers, will choose the most obvious course. You will not suspect. You will be, as always, faithful.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 02, 1999.

BigDog,

I haven't blown you off (or hyou either Chuck), I just got my hands full right now. Your serious question deserves a serious answer.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 02, 1999.

Here's an official White House news item from January 22, 1999:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19990122-7214.html

"Remarks By The President On Keeping America Secure For The 21st Century"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 02, 1999.

If only that were a ref to the REAL Y2K, and not terrorism. (NB NOT the media hyped version of Y2, but the very real data infrastructure fragilities.)

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 03, 1999.

Hardliner: By your leave Sir. The Marine Corps will do what it has always done. No more no less. and that is to OBEY ORDERS. That is what makes the Corps. what it is. Semper Fi.

-- Max (stingray@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999.

Ah ha! So my assessment of you, hardliner, was accurate. It takes a pitbull to want to stop bullets.

You guys are really paranoid. You are trying to find trends when you have no data. You should take a lesson from military intelligence. It may be a contradiction in terms, but they know how to look at lots (and lots) of data and formulate or postulate trends. The only trend youre going to find here is that military organizations come and go based on global and domestic threats and technologies. The three services (Marines are a part of the Navy, not their own department) have three separate missions but sometimes need to work together. Thats why the JCS formed.

The same thing happened when they formed Space Command in 1982. They made it into a US Command when they finally figured out the Army mission (extension of the ABM stuff). Until that time many discussions were held to determine missions, goals, charters and who would be involved. FEMA has worked with the DOD many time before and they'll continue to support disaster recovery. They have a "center" at NORAD for just that mission.

Before, the terrorist threat stayed mainly overseas. Now, its hit home and the DoD wants to address this threat. Plain and simple, nothing more. Part of the military role is to protect its country against adversaries, not to kill its citizens. You really are paranoid.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

BigDog & Chuck,

I've given a great deal of thought to both of your questions and the conclusions I've come to seem to be relevant to both. What you've both essentially asked is the real hard question of how one goes about resolving an internal moral conflict, either between two opposing values which are both valid or between a moral value and a practical one.

To begin with, I fell into the trap of framing the question improperly as, "What will I do, and how will I decide?" When it dawned on me that whatever I decided as an individual would make little difference to the overall scheme of things, I backed off and tried again.

BigDog, you asked, ". . .will the Marines resist other US military or para-military units domestically if they turn rogue, based on political orders?" That was your first question.

My first thought was that you needed a prophet, (not me) but then I realized that all that was in order was a look at history. Unlike Y2K, there is historical precedent to answer your question. Examples abound, starting at Ft. Sumpter and ending at Appomatox Courthouse. I'm afraid that only reinforces the need for a prophet vis a vis Y2K and whatever may happen, but it does clearly show that a true civil war is what you've asked about.

Then you asked, "Or do you consider the entire idea of US military units turning on citizens (on) our soil an oxymoron?"

I suppose that in the sense that most individual members of the military are also citizens it could be an oxymoron, but the question of their behavior is a valid and legitimate one. My own view is that in our brief (all things considered) national history, there have been ample opportunities and occasions for the military to do just that. Without going into a graduate level history lecture (which, BTW, I am in no way qualified to deliver), I think the answer must be that if the federal government could enforce its will by using the military in that way, it would have done so already. The War Between the States is the closest that I can see that we've come, and there are a few examples (Sherman. . .Atlanta and the rest of Georgia. . .to mention one) that must give us pause. I once knew an old sergeant from Georgia who was fond of saying that the only thing more dangerous than a lieutenant with a pencil, was a Yankee with a match! So, yes, it could be in the cards, but foresight is, as I'm sure you know, as blind as hindsight is sharp.

I tried to answer Chuck's question, "There are going to be a LOT of gutsy guys and gals trying to reconcile the oath and the orders if they are given the time. care to speculate on the "proper" method of questioning orders, and what you feel might be the chain followed in this (type of) case???" from the same trap and got nowhere. When I got out of the trap, the answer here became clear as well, but not very specific. Lee got one answer and Grant got another. Those two probably used similar methods but I don't know that for sure. The question itself tore families apart and divided a nation and the wound is not completely healed over a century later. Whether there is a "proper" method to question one's orders or not is a gamble that will be forced upon those in the military. Ultimately, it must be an individual moral choice that will be judged by others according to not-yet-formulated rules which will depend on the outcome. History is indeed written by the victors.

I am aware that my answers raise still more questions and must not be very reassuring but that's the best that I can come up with. I suggest that our best hopes for the future are still with Diane's "community" ideas. None of us are capable of weathering this storm alone and our chances, both individually and collectively, are greatly enhanced by earnest cooperation and genuine concern for each other. We shall all be "our brother's keeper" in one way or another--and someone will be ours.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 03, 1999.

This has turned into the most informative thread that I believe that I have ever seen! Hardliner, you know your stuff, and its great to get your perspectives!!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 03, 1999.

Troll Maria,

Speaking for myself, I have never said, nor have ever meant to imply that our military is planning to turn against law-abiding U.S. citizens.

What all this means to me is that our government is extremely concerned about both Y2K AND terrorism. I just heard on the ABC Evening News last night that we are still very concerned about retaliation from Iraq. I don't doubt this.

What I do see from various pieces of this puzzle is deep concern about Y2K on the government's part, a desire to keep that concern quiet...and maybe, just maybe, the government finding it convenient if the public cannot tell the difference between Y2K system failures and terrorist attacks on computer systems.

I'm concerned that terrorists might try to attack our computer systems too, but it would be easier for the public to accept a military presence due to terrorism rather than one due to Y2K.

I do think a National Emergency will be declared within the next 12 months. It could be due to terrorism, but if not, it will be due to Y2K. I believe Y2K will cause enough disruption that the military will have to get involved--if for no other reason than things like making sure power plants receive the coal they need to generate electricity.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 03, 1999.

OK, now I'm going to push everyone's buttons again. A long time ago, I posted a summary of Chittum's book Civil War II . There are 2 issues with Chittum that seem to stop everybody's brains in their tracks and which block all rational thought, perhaps rightly so. The first is that he is a y2k denier, and has an idiotic web site backing that up. The second is that he appears, on superficial analysis, to be racist. I think he is guilty of the first charge, right or wrong, you'd have to read everything on the web related to y2k and make up your own mind.

On the second charge of racism, which disgusts me and would put an immediate end to my ever mentioning his name again if true, I have to say there is nothing definitely racist in his book, any more than an academic's analysis of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict could be called inherently racist for simply identifying possible coalescing elements in a given conflict.

Anyway, his book really is directly relevant to the issues on this thread. After pondering so long and hard, Hardliner finally came close to the issue that Chittum has been raising all along, from the beginning - possible civil war. I think this book is worth reading, but I'm not a shill for it - beg, borrow, or steal it for all I care.

And for those who resonate to the language of imminent disaster, well, Chittum's tone is a muted version of North, Skousen, Milne - all the dark reasoning, but without the undercurrent of hysteria.

The reason I bring this up again is that I take his hypothesis seriously enough to be scared by it.

As for the Corps, I wonder if anybody has read Thomas Ricks' Making the Corps, and if so, do you remember the highly effective and intelligent recruit Winston ? And the philosophy he held, the predictions he made ?

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Come on, Cat, never heard of the book. What prediction does he make?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 03, 1999.

His prediction is a geopolitically divided North American continent within 20 years, along ethnic lines. The ethnic basis of the division is where he might differ from others who are edging toward concern for civil war, perhaps Hardliner falls into this latter category (who would reject the ethnic basis). The book contains an extremely convincing analysis of the "Reconquista" movement in the Southwest and our relations with Mexico. Somewhat less convincing in its analysis of African-American/Caucasian relations, but still worth pondering. For those who doubt the power of ethnic coalescing factors in times of stress, I'll say no more than one word: Bosnia. And for those who say "but here in the fat 'n happy TV-marinate US we don't have a bloody history like that to ignite it!" I'll have four words: you don't know history.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Ambiguity alert, Dog, you might have been asking about Winston in Ricks' book, perhaps NOT asking about Chittum.

Winston is the highly articulate and street savvy African-American recruit from Anacostia (tough part of D.C.), who excelled in all Parris Island boot training, but consistently maintained, and he and his Caucasian boot camp mates even agreed amicably about this, that ethnically based civil war was inevitable. He joked about the National Guard being called into his neighborhood in the future to put down what he (Winston) viewed as revolutionary action: "Hey, they have M-16's, we have AK's"...

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

E.,

I think you'd be well advised to slow down a bit and save some energy for the long haul. As I recall, you were the one that pointed out the multi-generational aspects of the problem. We've all seen you argue quite well using reason and logic, but your latest post surprises me in that it often lacks those qualities.

I did oversimplify, under the assumption that neither you nor any of the others who might be following this discussion were ignorant of the relevant background. I did so in an attempt to answer your specific query as to my own individual actions. My answer stands.

I reaffirm my agreement with your statements regarding the 4th Amendment, the "drug war" and civil seizure but I must point out that this has nothing to do with whether or not the military will assist in the abolishment of constitutional law.

Your personal knowledge of two former Marines who have turned into bandits saddens me, but you should see clearly (and have presented better arguments in the past) that the existence of the specific instance does not prove the existence of the general case.

Your assertion that the nuclear destruction of an american city would result in a clamor for "order" and a disappearance of the Constitution is an unsupported one. Why do you think that would happen? What evidence do you have that it would be so? What line of reasoning led you to that conclusion? My own personal guess would be that everyone would be so scared shitless that they'd stay home and glue themselves to a radio, or more likely, a TV set. The idea that everyone would respond by saying, "Sure, take all my guns and do whatever you need to", does not ring true to me. More likely, I think, would be the response, "What do our guns have to do with drinking water or food? What if there's no soldiers around when the "bad guys" show up here>/i>? Why do they really want them?" Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the populace, but I don't think so. They may be largely stuporous herd animals in normal times, but an incident such as you describe would surely awaken them.

Again, you assert without support that, "No one, Marines included, is going to miss the constitution much, if America is under attack." In addition to the questions raised above about your reasoning and evidence, let me point out that the Constitution was written with full foreknowledge that America would almost certainly come under attack at various times. The Constitution was not suspended during any of the various wars that America engaged in, even when we came under attack. Did the government suspend the Constitution in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor? FDR was probably the closest thing we've seen so far to "Slick" and even he knew better than to try that.

When you assert that a Marine's job is "to kill" you reveal your lack of understanding of the Corps, or for that matter, of the military in general. Killing is the most odious and least desired part of the job, but fortunately it's one of the smallest parts. You wrongly and seriously denigrate our servicemen and women if you believe that they are nothing more than biological robots to be aimed and turned upon whatever target is chosen by "them". I think you know better and I am somewhat at a loss in attempting to understand you in this.

If someone sets off a "weapon of mass destruction" in one of our cities E., who would you like to send to deal with it? If it happens, I submit that whoever does it will be, by definition a true terrorist. The government is in the process of training and equipping fire departments all across the country to deal with NBC threats right now, but as it stands, the only outfit with the current training, equipment and expertise is the military. The United States Code (Posse Comitatus) specifically prohibits the Army or the Air Force from being used, so what would you suggest?

Now if the plan was to send, say, the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines (a front line infantry outfit) into this scenario, I'd say that your fears were a little more justified, but that is simply not the case.

Early on in your post, you quite correctly pointed out that civil seizure was one of the issues that drove the American Revolution. Just so. How long did it go on and how long did the populace endure it before the fighting actually broke out? That's what I meant by saving some energy for the long haul. This story is far from over. We're only at the beginning.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 03, 1999.

. . .italics off

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 03, 1999.

Come on Cat, the Bosnia part of the globe has been dueling for hundreds of years (like the Hatfields and McCoys). You ought to look into the history of those countries before stating your one word. The only reason their fighting came to the media front was that it hit a town that previously held the Olympics. No way you can draw an analogy between that fighting over there and ethnic lines here. If you did, this unrest would take a few more hundred years to develop.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

Troll Maria, I respect your post, but to me it appears to be written very definitely from one who is a member of the dominant and priveleged class (I don't mean a necessarily a Rockefeller, just not one of the identity elements that has long-standing and quite legitimate historical enmity towards the current government and ruling class). The dominant class is usually surprised by the views held by other groups. So your skepticism is expected.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

One more little thing: the current relative economic prosperity is all that holds this country together. It is the economic equivalent, in its effect, of the dead, iron hand of the Soviets, which was all that kept the Eastern European countries together. If that relative prosperity is threatened or removed for significant numbers of people (cracks in foundation are already present of course), it'll go down. Human nature.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

RC, Spider Robinson wrote an interesting novel about ethnic civil war called "Night of Power" - quite thought provoking.

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplnanet.net), February 03, 1999.

Hardliner:

thank you. That is about what I expected, but not what I had hoped. I had hoped that there was an "out" either in the chain or around the chain ("Old Boys Net", Gunny's Net, etc. < and yeah, I DO know who REALLY runs things (LOL) > ) where these orders would be vetted, or appealed. I hate playing Polly out of ignorance.

"Wheer's my posthole digger, Ma??"

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 03, 1999.

I'm sorry Cat, I just need to make one comment. I'm not a member of the dominant and priveleged class. I grew up on the streets of Philadelphia where there were numerous riots and lots of racial tension. I saw ethnic lines up close and personal. I got an education and got out of there. I lived in a number of places since then and have found that it's a big and diverse country. I believe that this diversity holds this country together not just the economic prosperity (even though there are many on the poverty line).

If the prosperity goes away we won't crumble like Russia. The Soviet Union was always on the verge of crumling and as you point out only communism kept it together. But they did it to themselves by spending more on military than our GNP. But that's another thread.

I just have another viewpoint.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

>>I think you'd be well advised to slow down a bit and save some energy for the long haul.

Just warming up.

>>I reaffirm my agreement with your statements regarding the 4th Amendment, the "drug war" and civil seizure but I must point out that this has nothing to do with whether or not the military will assist in the abolishment of constitutional law.

Clearly we disagree. I don't see the VFW in the streets protesting the Drug War. You are without doubt a thoughtful and principled warrior, but given the current state of Constitutional decay, and the complicity of the military (the South American operations, training of police and DEA units in urban warfare tactics), I think the military oath to uphold the constitution holds about as much water these days as the Hippocratic Oath does in Medicine. There are exceptions.

>>Your personal knowledge of two former Marines who have turned into bandits saddens me, but you should see clearly (and have presented better arguments in the past) that the existence of the specific instance does not prove the existence of the general case.

I agree. The use of the military in South and Central America to control coca fields and ship drugs to the U.S., however, does. Perhaps the Marine Corp is above all this and unaware of it. If the latter, you all need to do some recon, and do some tagging for "the long haul."

>>you assert without support that, "No one, Marines included, is going to miss the constitution much, if America is under attack." In addition to the questions raised above about your reasoning and evidence, let me point out that the Constitution was written with full foreknowledge that America would almost certainly come under attack at various times. The Constitution was not suspended during any of the various wars thatAmerica engaged in, even when we came under attack.

Tell that to the second- and third-generation japenese and germans who were rounded up like cattle, divested of their property, and imprisoned in concentration camps during WWII, some of whom died there. And why do the Executive Orders on file, and the proposed plans for "cyberterrorist" (Y2k) and NBC threats, contain provisions for the draconian emergency powers like control of the radio and t.v. airwaves, confiscation of just about any private property, radios, food, guns, the drafting of civilian labor crews and the separation of families as necessary? You're right, there are no provisions for explicitly suspending the Constitution. It's just ignored, like a senior citizen that's outlived his or her usefulness. Look at the Cohen's speech the other day; any "concerns" over a standing army on U.S. soil are attributed to "extreme conservatives." There's not a hell of a lot of constitutional scholarship being aired as the matter is presented for us to adjust to.

>>Did the government suspend the Constitution in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor? FDR was probably the closest thing we've seen so far to "Slick" and even he knew better than to try that.

Again, it's like the japanese round-up: only those who have been "profiled" as a potential terrorist (subscription to right-wing publications, activity in certain groups, churches, etc.) will lose their rights and get their shotguns ammo and food confiscated, and they and their families imprisoned. These people have already been tagged. The FBI is doing this now, having concentrated hundreds of agents in "trouble spots" like the NW and NC. They got their terrorist legislation passed after those military aerosol fuel bombs (excuse me - truck full of fertilizer) took out the Murrah building, and they've been busy using it.

>>[E. not understanding/respecting the Marines and their mission]

"THIS IS MY RIFLE. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."

That's what it's about. This is the core of it, that's why it begins the creed. And the creed ends with the word "peace," which is the other side of what it's about. It's certainly not robotic. It's one of the most richly human occupations imaginable. There's an enormous skill-set and body of knowledge required in warfare, and the preparation for, and support of, warfare. Even the lowliest infantryman must exercise decision making and leadership - of himself; and of others, at a moment's notice, in battle. Marines can and do dig ditches, cook, clean, program computers, prosecute and defend the accused, service engines, do scholarly research, fly jets, climb mountains, give orders, take orders, rake gravel, haul water... But all this tireless activity is aimed at, and leads up to, one thing and one thing only: defeating the enemies of freedom. Enforcing peace, by delivering death. I am a grown-up, and I not only don't have a problem with that, I hold the occupation in reverence.

Killing is not easy or fun, for anyone. Military training might make it easier to stomach, but probably just easy enough to get the job done effectively. I would be the last to suggest that Marines enjoy killing people. That said, the battlefield requires men to draw upon aspects of their nature that must come to expression only under those circumstances. That is why the battlefield is a sacred space; that is why the whole business of killing or intimidating a dangerous enemy is hemmed by grave ritual, totemic symbolism and somber oath. It must be kept separate from ordinary life, both to protect that ordinary life and to keep the military purpose sacred. Perhaps the Marines, of all the armed services, come closest to realizing the sacredness of their occupation.

When the military is deployed on U.S. soil, whether to haul water, deliver food, whatever - there comes with it the implicit threat of violent, deadly force. Hence the prohibition against a "standing" army. They are standing, ready to fullfill their natural purpose. And for the framers, that was enough of an offense to liberty to warrant drawing the line. In this matter, not only the sacredness of our liberties, but the sacredness of the warriors occupation, are at risk.

I have been to a place, a special place, that is a memorial for the dead. I won't name it or describe it. But I'll wager you have stood there too, though you may not have a memory of it. Because of that journey, I know, in my marrow, the price that was paid for the liberties I now enjoy. I know that the indescribable pain, horror and sorrow endured by those men was to prevent the world of slavery that threatens us once again. It was a world where silent eyes watched you, everywhere you traveled, and children were taught in schools, by the police, to spy on their parents and report them if they spoke against the State. It was a world where files were kept on the intimate details of everyone's life. It was a world where armed men could burst into your home and seize your property, or your person, at any time, in the name of "national security." It was a world where the sacred mission of the military lost it's boundaries, and absorbed and consumed the population it had once vowed to protect. It was a world of slaves.

The boundary isn't there just to keep the Marines out, and to protect us from Marines. The boundary is there to make the Marines what they are. I don't want the boundary to be broken, because, along with my freedom, I don't want to lose the Marines, their sacred memory, and what they stand for.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

I can't and won't try to match either Hardliner or e's eloquence on this thread. My eloquence is reserved for the less romantic stuff, like code. Sigh. While they/we continue to dialogue, let me propose remembering a certain aspect of the simplicity of this thread (NOT that the posts have been off-thread, they're right-on).

The point here, at its simplest is: "if our representative, constitutional government is planning martial law or its conceptual equivalent, this ought to be a full part of the national Y2K debate." Period. Or, why can Canada and other nations raise that possibility officially and not ours? Using panic as an excuse is fine (not) for Y2K generally, but not for martial law.

Misinformation or no information gives someone like e (heck, me and maybe even hardliner, no?) fuel for a reasonable speculative fire. It tends to buttress at least a piece of e's case right off the bat, since you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that most of our country's sorrier moments (and the Japanese internment was at the top) were conceived and prepared in darkness.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 03, 1999.

BigDog,

I don't want to be right about this.

But since I saw the headline "DOE Admits it Gave Unwitting Orphan Children Radioactive Lemonade" I've come to believe we'd better all start doing the some of the most informed speculation we possibly can.

Concentration camps, military radiation, psychopharmaceutical and agent-dispersal experiments on an unconsenting and uninformed population, widespread importation of narcotics to fund covert operations, plans to round up and intern political dissidents... There's more than enough, in the public record, for us to demand an exhaustive and enforceable pledge that no such further atrocities and assorted petty crimes will be carried out in the name of national security, especially now that their attention is focused domestic military operations. America is one "village" we must not allow them to "destroy, in order to save."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

E, incredible essayist and total tack-driving cultural/political analyst that you are, you still have to admit that there is one thing preventing the final imposition of totalitarianism: the lack of a unifying ideology. The individuals and groups doing the lemonade, syphylis, narcotics, etc. are disunified, acting disjointly, competitively, and often at cross-purposes. For example, the man who could pull the trigger on the much-feared set of EO's for the military to enforce is utterly despised by the military. Until and unless a unifying ideology can corral the cross-purposes, they'll be no more effective as a group than a pack of hyenas on a carcass.

That said, I do notice a kind of coalescence around recognition of technology as the ultimate source of power for all ideologies and orientations. That's why y2k interests me. If y2k doesn't bring it all down, some articulation of a totalitarian creed centered on technology will indeed place the jackboot onto our faces, forever.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

RC ---- Yes, beautifully said there in your last point. I am completely convinced that our greatest post-Y2K danger is a global desire for "never again" (sincere, given that x millions of people might die worldwide as a direct result of Y2K) coupled to a "this time we'll do it right" attitude about technology. Yeah, sure. Yoke that to broken or semi-broken national systems surrendering sovereignty to a new UN and .... ???

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 03, 1999.

Big Dog and Runway Cat, I think you have unearthed the Kernel of truth buried at the bottom of this thread. This was outstanding reading, I could almost visualize the foundiung fathers having this same debate at the Constitutional convention.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 03, 1999.

RC,

>>The individuals and groups doing the lemonade, syphylis, narcotics, etc. are disunified, acting disjointly, competitively, and often at cross-purposes. For example, the man who could pull the trigger on the much-feared set of EO's for the military to enforce is utterly despised by the military. Until and unless a unifying ideology can corral the cross-purposes, they'll be no more effective as a group than a pack of hyenas on a carcass.

First point: I have come to realize that many organizations, which are apparently working at cross purposes, are funded and directed by the same forces. They create conflict and division between all groups: generational, ethnic, racial, class, gender... Then they sweep in and offer a solution to the hopeless conditions they cultivate. The best two books for introducing this view are "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" and "The Occult Technology of Power." The money for both sides of most conflicts is loaned by the same source. With conditions. The arms are supplied by the same brokers. In the vast majority of cases, they control the outcome, if not the conflict itself, whether it's a deeply hidden intelligence war or a world war.

In order for the people to adhere to the ideology presented to them, they must first be driven to desperation. If you want to break the USA's (strong) national identity, it's resistance to being absorbed into a regional trade-block like the EU, turning it into a "pack of hyenas on a carcass" might be just the ticket. After a decade or three of that, we'll be offered the solution: Big Dog's "never again/let's do it right this time" scenario. "Rabid constitutionalists" and "extreme nationalists" will be villified for clinging to an outmoded document and national identity in the face of "inevitable" change. Probably a few "luddites" will be pilloried as well, for objecting to a newer, more exclusive and heavily survellianced internet and computerized citizen identification system.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

Well and bravely spoken E and Dog. But I'm at a loss for deep solution (beyond my neighborhood y2k stuff, addressed elsewhere, which is small potatoes). My main question is:

Does a human direction exist for the totalitarian evil that always seems to be hovering, or is there something inherent in technology that will drive us, regardless of parochial and idiosyncratic individual agendas, to a Brave New World as the means to construct one become available ? I'm inclined to the latter view, but I don't know any solution to it. The only proposal I'm aware of, found here, does not appeal to me either.

-Bewildered but Curious Runway Cat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Though Heidegger's politics were reprehensible, his post WWII essay on technology was disturbing and prescient. He foresaw that mankind was already caught in the grip of technologism to such a degree that thinking as man had hitherto understood that was nearly impossible. Not impracticable or rare, impossible.

He felt that it was inevitable that man pass through this phase (couldn't be stopped) but that there was hope (not certainty, hope) that we would reach a point at which we could separate ourself psychically from our technology and, once again think freely about it and our choices for our own collective future.

Now, as a technologist who can be turned on by Wired, I admit it (though it's gotten lame in the last two years), and who has had numerous "aha" experiences when the code worked, which I love, I understand being "possessed by the god-ghost in the machine." There's powerful stuff in them thar chips, boys. Heck, playing Tetris can do it to you.

But, is the possession inevitable and permanent?

Cat, we don't know. But if Y2K slaps us mercifully in the face, we might wake up long enough to have a few thoughts. Now, look, real thoughts are powerful. It only takes one or two of the right kind (memes, if you will) to turn an age.

If we're very very very very very (you get the picture) lucky, the right post-Y2K meme may bring down the evil empire while leaving the Tie Fighters (technology) operational.

This NG is a tiny piece (let's not get grandiose) of hard labor towards that end. That's why we spend precious time here in the midst of the nonsense. That's why I value my disagreements with you, e, a, hardliner and others almost as much as our agreements.

You see, there is something that almost resembles thought going on here .... occasionally .... wow .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 03, 1999.

Well said, BD. This is a good time to chime in and thank you all for being here and sharing your ideas and opinions. You're all coming from different angles, and it ALL helps me broaden my perspective. I wish we all could have met under less dire circumstances, but that's not the way of it.

And sincere apologies if I've offended anyone in going too far to make a point. If not yet, then apologies in advance...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

E, Hardliner, any other members of the Corps -

Just a note: my wife mentioned last night that she'd talked briefly with our 13-year-old son about the military (they'd just seen one of those "GI Bill" ads from the Army.) My son's comment was, "The Army really has nothing to offer me. If I'm going to serve, it'll be with the best: the Marines."

And I'd be very proud if he did. Thanks, gents.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), February 03, 1999.

Mac,

Nope, not a Marine, I. Didn't mean to give that impression. But they're a big part of who we all are, and worth knowing, and knowing about.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

E.,

When you say, "Clearly we disagree", I assume that you disagree with me regarding the disconnect between the, "Constitutional decay" as you put it (superb term--in all respects), and the question of whether or not the military will assist in the abolishment of constitutional law.

Your argument seems to be that the military is already doing just that. If in fact they are, I must agree that there is no such disconnect, but I don't see them doing so. Nor, do I see the examples that you cite as being accurate, in some cases, or valid, in others.

Take for example, "the South American operations" that you cite. What are you talking about? The only "South American Operations" that I know of are conducted by various "alphabet agencies". The sometime military personnel that are assigned to these agencies are not in violation of any Constitutional provision that I know of, nor are they doing anything that I view as morally incorrect. You and I have been over this before E., the civilian government makes the policy and the military follows orders within the framework of the Constitution. We don't always agree with those orders, but absent a clear violation of the Constitution, there is nothing that we can, or more importantly, should do by way of disobediance or even protest. Basically, voting is about the practical extent of allowable political activity on the part of the military. The training of police and DEA units in urban warfare tactics is not Constitutionally prohibited, and even if we think we're sure what those civilian authorities will use that training for, we neither have the legal authority to deny it to them nor the moral authority to condemn them for a supposed future act. It was reported to me by the son of a small city police chief that his father told him, "These days you have to break the law in order to enforce it." That is simply wrong--legally, morally and ethically. For the military to do it, whether in a good cause or not, would be just as wrong. If this is what you call, "the complicity of the military", I understand you but I do not agree with you.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars is a Political Action Committee; an organization of lobbyists chartered to task whoever needs to be tasked on behalf of veterans. Although they are all military veterans, they are not the military. They pass resolutions and write letters and pester government officials, but although they care deeply about the "Constitutional decay", they are neither equipped nor inclined to conduct street protests on behalf of even their chartered objectives. To expect them to do so is neither reasonable nor realistic.

Your assertion that the military "controls coca fields and ships drugs" is not only unsupported (again) but simply doesn't make sense. The "alphabet agencies" are running whatever SA ops that are in place and a simple comparison of the physical quantity of cocaine that shows up on America's streets with the cargo capacity of those military aircraft and naval vessels that have made the trip will easily demonstrate the impossibility of the "ships drugs" part. Even if you crammed every ship and plane to the gills and acquired the complicity of every last officer and enlisted man on those planes and ships, you wouldn't come close. As to low level smuggling by the military, that's been going on since long before British sailors used to smuggle opium and probably even before Greek and Roman galley crews smuggled whatever they might have smuggled. That is an unfortunate fact of life in anyone's military and is a never ending struggle. I seriously doubt that it will ever be entirely done away with.

You and I are covering yet more previously argued points when you bring up the Nisei concentration camps. Surely you see the difference between denying, trampling on, stealing, (however you choose to characterize it) the Constitutional rights of a group of scapegoats and suspending or abolishing the Constitution in its entirety! I in no way mean to justify those actions, only to differentiate between them.

Now don't get your knickers in a twist here E., I'm more than convinced that the feds were up to their eyeballs in the OKC bombing, BUT--FAE (fuel-air-explosive) is an aircraft delivered weapon. I find it unlikely that it was involved. Ammonium Nitrate, however, is an excellent candidate. Fertilizer it may be, but 256 molecules that release their bond energy will turn a 10 pound (or maybe 10 kilo, I don't remember which for sure) block of ice into steam! (Ned Taylor, please correct me if that's wrong. I did the math myself this time.)

This time it was you who oversimplified by saying that the Marines' job was, "to kill". I was right, you do know better and I do understand you now.

You speak of "implicit threats" and "risks" to our liberty. I agree. They are there and they are real, but I ask you again:

Your assertion that the nuclear destruction of an american city would result in a clamor for "order" and a disappearance of the Constitution is an unsupported one. Why do you think that would happen? What evidence do you have that it would be so? What line of reasoning led you to that conclusion?

If someone sets off a "weapon of mass destruction" in one of our cities E., who would you like to send to deal with it? If it happens, I submit that whoever does it will be, by definition a true terrorist. The government is in the process of training and equipping fire departments all across the country to deal with NBC threats right now, but as it stands, the only outfit with the current training, equipment and expertise is the military. The United States Code (Posse Comitatus) specifically prohibits the Army or the Air Force from being used, so what would you suggest?

You'd win that wager E. I know the place you speak of. We really are in complete agreement here and I guess the only reason that I don't view the crossing of that boundry by Marines as so risky or wrong is that I am one and I have faith and trust in my fellow Marines that the crossing would be for exceptional reasons and in good cause and that we would not for any reason or through any trickery or chicanery sully our traditions or our values.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 03, 1999.

E, Hardliner, If you are referring to where I think you are, I suspect that my Uncle was the 3rd or 4th Allied person to walk on that piece of ground (8th Air Force Inteligence). B., D., or A.??

Alternatively, I could be all wet.

c

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 04, 1999.

PS It is a TRUE JOY to watch two or three minds truly grapple with reality, morality, and the unknown. This thread has enriched me just by being here and my being able to read it. You have also managed to surprise me in some things (not easily done on the things I'm thinking of), and have demonstrated that Shalikashvili was (is?) not the only extremely dangerous man alive. (A THINKING warrior is the most dangerous thing available in this day and age!) This may explain why he (Gen Shali) has faded into the background. I truly believe that we would be in a better place in the world, if he had held his nose and tried to stay on. I TRULY would then have been able to trust my military.

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 04, 1999.

What a thread. I hate to hit and run today, but I do have to do some *work.*

Hardliner struck a bullseye:

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were simply "ignored" for generations until the Civil War --- slavery. Formal statements or acts to suspend the Constitution are not necessary, if ignoring it accomplishes the same thing.

Side note: Brazilian citizens of Japanese heritage were shipped to U.S. internment camps during WWII. The U.S. demanded Brazil turn them over to the U.S. - which they did.

Later,

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 04, 1999.

Thanks, PNG, but it was E. Coli that made that particular hole in the 10X ring. I took it to mean that he understood why the Constitution is not likely to be suspended in its entirety.

It should also be clear to all other observers that the Constitution is too useful to abolish, and even your worst political enemy will agree. We have all seen how quickly a politico will wrap himself in the same Constitution that he treated as a rag the day before when it suits his purpose (and still cling to the absurdity of the previous day!). I hate to sully this discussion with reference to certain current events, but they demonstrate this point quite well.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Hardliner, and all of you, thank you for deeply pensive-afterwards discussions. Still pondering. Another related news quote:

States Team With Federal, Local Governments To Prepare Against Terrorism

"... As the only remaining superpower, the United States is vulnerable to terrorism by rogue states, extremist groups and criminal cartels, said Richard Clarke, national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism with the National Security Council.

Terrorists can strike with truck bombs or deadly chemicals, or they could use computers to shut off or damage the nation's electricity networks, banking systems and even 911 operations, he said.

``Over the last decade, quietly, we have made this country entirely dependent on computers,'' he said. ``Those networks were never designed with the threat of terrorism or warfare in mind.'' "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like they know electricity, banking, & emergency response are likely to fail (Y2K more of a certainty than terrorists).

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 04, 1999.

Leska,

Your logic is a bit lacking here. Knowing that the electricity supply is operated by computers and realizing that it is vulnerable to being shut down by those computers is not quite the same as knowing that the Y2K defect will do just that. It well may, but without specific knowledge of exactly what those computers are programmed to do, we cannot be sure how Y2K will affect them.

This guy's statement, "Those networks were never designed with the threat of terrorism or warfare in mind" is a lot more chilling, because those networks were never designed to operate in any century other than the 20th either!

The truly scary thing here is that we simply don't know.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Hardliner,

You are a credit to humanity. Actually you all are, just different.

And, at the risk of sounding highly sexist, do you have any conception of how absolutely foreign you all sound to most women? Or nurturing people for that matter?

A sacred battlefield? " that is why the whole business of killing or intimidating a dangerous enemy is hemmed by grave ritual, totemic symbolism and somber oath. It must be kept separate from ordinary life, both to protect that ordinary life and to keep the military purpose sacred."

Excuse me, but life is sacred, not killing.

Leska and Ashton have perfected the art of death as a sacred transition. Killing and battle are just one big hemorrhage of personal values and lack of understanding one's purpose in living on this great blue marble floating in a vast sea of twinkling starlight, IMHO.

It is that very act of separation of life from death, the "ordinary" from profane that have created a disenfranchisement of the population, from one another and from their roots of liberty. Personal liberty where dreams are built, not torn down. Where a coming together of shared purpose, shared ideals, shared vision, while still respecting and honoring the individual differences, are the "rule of law" and the common law that rules.

You underestimate the people in this country. Truly you do.

The flame of freedom may be buried, but it smolders still. The Constitution is not a "dead rag" preserved like an aging museum piece, under bullet-proof glass. It still represents a dream, and a strong vision for many. Of hope for a brighter future. For them or, if too late, their children. And even if it feels elusive or lost. But how did we loose it? We lost our souls in the search for prosperity with an individual "P" rather than an inclusive one. Oddly enough, Y2K has the potential to impact a fundamental sea-change in how we view our current lives contrasted against how we would "like" them to be.

I've been struck, over and over, by a latent yet growing desire, boiling beneath the surface of most people's lives. They deeply miss the sense of "belonging," of being included in a greater scheme. Of feeling recognized by a local group, of being productive and a participant in creating common goals that lift their hearts, brighten their eyes and make them jump out of bed each morning. They miss community. In the best sense of the word.

Many here, and elsewhere, fear that someone(s) "separate" and apart - government, National Guard, the military, New World Order, terrorists - is/are plotting to kill their dreams. That time or mal-functioning technology will sweep their heart's desires under a war-torn carpet. And they are both right, and wrong. There IS clear evidence, on all sides, for plots and counter-plots and subversion and submission of our hard-won freedoms. But, do you know what? Y2K aside, we already gave them up.

That "war" has already been won. No standing military or martial law will make a difference to a people who have already given up living. Living in the best sense of the word. What do I mean by that?

If you are not, right now, living a life that energizes and excites you, the "dark forces" of daily grind have captured your soul. Your job, should you choose to accept the "impossible" mission, is now to take back your life, take back your dreams, and no one will be able to take them away. Y2K is just an exclamation point on a journey for personal adventure.

If you persist in seeing life, your life, in terms of "either" "or" instead of "and" you will create separation all around you. Live with "and" defining your actions and that which you experience will be different.

Try this. Try imagining a Y2K controlled chaos, where normally opposing forces, suddenly come together. Think about cooperating and working side-by-side because there is a greater good to be had. If you work at creating a cohesive community now, then if "outside" military help is offered, or even imposed, the local "working" group can change their potential interventions, by preempting "national" directives, with a solid, pre-existing community-generated plan. Plan to work and work the plan.

Start now involving all the available groups -- city and county governments, fire departments, police, churches, senior centers, schools, businesses, etc.-in coming together for community creation. Then if the milita is involved, they will have little to control and lots to join in on.

Be part of your country's Y2K, and beyond, pre-emptive strike and create a community that most want and few can tear apart. Take back your life in the process too.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

Killing and battle are just one big hemorrhage of personal values and lack of understanding one's purpose in living on this great blue marble floating in a vast sea of twinkling starlight

Diane, you are a great writer and all, but I really feel you, and the others here, are too parochial in outlook. In particular, you focus on humanity to the exclusion of animals. To you Diane, life may look sacred and understanding may be a priority, but there's an awful lot of predation going on in nature. Now, that may be a form of cooperation viewed from a higher level, but then you should give that metaphysical benefit of the doubt to the sacred human killing referenced by Hardliner et al.

I constantly see this emphasis on values and morality involving humans only, as though animals had no souls. Then we pat ourselves on the back when we can imagine a future in which we somehow refrain from killing one another, meanwhile the stockyards are full. It's as though a bunch of cockroaches or rats got together after a nuclear holocaust to toast themselves for being the sole survivors.

I'm probably too weird even for THIS board,

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

RC,

WHOA!

First, I have never claimed nor do I believe that killing is "sacred". I clearly see that Creation is designed in such a manner that "the big fish eat the little fish" in the normal operation of that construct.

Second, you might want to reference some of Diane's earlier posts to this forum before you incorrectly assume that she is unaware of the existence of souls in "animals" (I may be the one with the incorrect assumption here, but I think not. Diane can easily answer the question.)

And third, again at the risk of sounding like a shill for Ishmael, it sounds to me as if you've not read it, but would find it in agreement with your own philosophy (insofar as I've been able to asess it based on your postings here). Of all the people who've posted here, I suspect that it would change your perspective the least.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Thanks Hardliner, I have actually read Ishmael , and it reflects my philosophy to some extent, though I didn't find it a high-quality work from the literary point of view.

Most new-agers are willing to admit in a general way that animals are cool, part of the "world soul" or whatever. But engagement with Nature demands more than that. First it demands that we recognize the incredible cruelty, waste, predation, and general horror of the natural world. Second, it demands that we recognize that we are inherently a part of that, both in our relations to one another and towards other animals. After those acknowledgements, then we must also acknowledge the existence of souls in ourselves and animals, equally valuable. And finally understand that whatever benefits humand most likely is death to other species, good intentions notwithstanding. Earth life, sad to say, is a zero-sum game.

I find many new-agers will jump to the 3rd step with recognizing the chilling relevance (for the predatory earth plane) of the first 2. And they never get to the 4th at all.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

I find many new-agers will jump to the 3rd step without recognizing the chilling relevance (for the predatory earth plane) of the first 2. And they never get to the 4th at all.

-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

RC,

Are you sure that we're not each other, and simply posting under two different names?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

bold off

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Hardliner, that's impossible, you are a Marine and have thus fired your M-16 on fully automatic, while I have never even THOUGHT about converting either of my 2 AR-15's to such a blasphemous mode !

-RC

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

>>whatever benefits humand most likely is death to other species, good intentions notwithstanding. Earth life, sad to say, is a zero-sum game.

Reduction of the universal suffering of existence makes us more than animals. I'm saying there is room for improvement. In the case of not eating animal flesh, for instance, there is mutual gain: fewer slaughterhouses; less animal waste runoff in our watersheds; fewer pesticides in the environment from the inefficiency of raising animal feed instead of vegetable protein for humans; less heart disease and colon cancer; less dioxin in mother's milk (red meat is the #1 vector for dioxin entering the human body). We can reduce the suffering we cause, by greater respect and patience with people and animals. And it isn't zero-sum (from this perspective): we gain by these behaviors, as does our "old enemy," nature. We can reduce suffering and create wealth for ourselves at the same time.

"Sacredness" isn't always a nice or positive thing. Sometimes it is a taboo, something powerful and dangerous. The operative principle is the creation of boundaries. Sacred ground. Sacred objects (like weapons, for instance) which can only be used by certain initiated and sanctified people under certain circumstances. Some human beings go rotton like fruit, and rape and pillage, etc.. Sometimes they gain control of communities and become dangerous to other communities. This has always happened and probably always will. This is why every community has it's initiated and sanctified killers, who kill only to protect the LIFE of the un-rotten community. They aren't killing for personal gain. They're killing, and dying, to protect us, so we can live, and nurture eachother, and all the other things people do. It's not easy to kill people (messy, noisy, strenuous, hard on the nerves); as Hardliner points out, most Marines would rather not do it. I'm sure they would rather die of old age, in bed, with their well-nurtured offspring standing around, nurturing them. But if we are threatened by other men, who have no boundaries (between church and state, between military and civilian, etc.), then they will stop them. They are set apart from us with ritual, so that they can do this terrible work safely. Safely for us, because of the boundaries imposed by their training and indoctrination; and safely for them, because it allows them to separate the actions on the battlefield from their ordinary life of nurturing offspring, etc.. This ability to make boundaries, to make things sacred, is, I believe, one of main things that separates us from animals.

Hardliner: I'm not ignoring your post, I'm thinking about it.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 04, 1999.

RC,

We're more in each other's head than maybe even we realize. I have never fired an M-16 on full auto! I'm afraid that I'm of the school of thought that believes fully automatic weapons are only appropriate for combat involving aircraft.

Do you know what a quatrefoil is? For those readers who don't, it is a four lobed figure that is embroidered on the top of Marine officer's covers and on the cuffs of their mess dress uniforms. It is a symbolic representation of the cross of white "line" (rope, for you landlubbers) that Continental Marines aboard ship used to sew onto the tops of their headgear so that their mates in the rigging who were tasked with sharpshooting during a boarding action could tell them from the enemy. If you can imagine the skill it required with a flintlock musket, from a perch in a sailing vessel's rigging aloft, at sea, to shoot into a mass of fighting men on the decks below and hit only those without a cross on top (and hopefully pick out those of your fellows who had lost said headgear), you will realize the standard that Marine riflemen try to live up to. "One target, one bullet".

It saves on ammo too. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Well, we know the definition of full-auto: a mechanism for turning money into noise

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

You have to admit folks, a thread that can go from Aacckkkies to quatrefoil in only 100 steps is pretty slick. Oops, pretty cool, excuse me!

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 04, 1999.

Hey, it's nice that Hardliner and Cat have fallen head over heels in love with each other over the past few posts, but I'm beginning to lose the thread or was this thread destined to end in intellectual romance :-) ??

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 04, 1999.

Dog, I have to rely on you to get my fur backed up ! Please prime the pump... What haven't we covered so far ? Only the unknowable future.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

BigDog,

Have a little patience! E. Coli is due in at any time with a post, and I doubt that he'll disappoint any of us (he never has, has he?)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 04, 1999.

Well RC,

My two cats curled up together are a couple of old souls. The dolphins and whales on this planet are also likely way more evolved than humans. We are the ones who created a past that we often ignore, a present that we rarely sit in, and an uncertain future that weve learned to fear. The animals wisely live within the immediate moment.

Yes, the animal kingdom is often predatory, that is natural. And yet how do you compare a tiger to a butterfly? Its all part of the chain of life, a circle. What makes humankind different is the ability to think differently than animals, though not always wisely. We have an innate, evolutionary ability to grow away from our animal selves and into our spiritual selves. A fresher, lighter self, that honors and respects beauty, individuality and life as a sacred walk. In earlier times, for native americans, the hunt would always be preceded by prayers and blessings and followed by blessings, gratitude and gratefulness to the animal releasing its life to nourish the tribe. That killing was sacred, and not wasteful. Do you think our current military is as thoughtful?

We now have amazing abilities to feed the vast planetary populations with organically grown foods, without the need for killing the animals, or polluting our ever-widening, interconnected ponds. Will we choose to take that path? That remains to be seen. This wiser choice also requires an evolutionary change in habit patterns and belief systems to create that transition, which are actually underway. Perhaps too slowing to combat the dying of our planet. Maybe Y2K will alter people perceptions somewhat.

BTW, if you wish to label me as a new ager, please dont. The correct term for wisdom seekers is metaphysics ... beyond the physical. When you get beyond the physical, youll recognize that all things have consciousness. The computer you type at, the chair you sit on, the house you live in, the furnishings that surround you, the car your drive, the earth you walk on, the garden you stroll in, the food you eat, ad infinitum. Even Hardliners and everyone elses guns as well. These supposedly inanimate things interact with the thoughts you think. (Hint: try to keep your thoughts loving and caring and that is what you will experience surrounding you. Conversely, remaining steeped in negative thoughts is a sure fire way to experience collapse and breakdown surrounding you in all things and people). We all live within a sea of consciousness, largely untapped, but ever present just the same. Try to engage it wisely.

One of the many lessons to be learned of sacred life is ... whatever benefits humans, benefits all, and does not require death to other species. It simply has taken millennia to learn those inter-related lessons and heaven knows how much more time it will take us to get it.

Life does not end when you or animals die. It begins anew ... like a circling spiral into infinity. If you feel lost and alone, look up into a clear night sky. Take your place among the consciousness of all that you can see, and cannot see. We call that vastness Divine ... in addition to many other names. Our options are endless. So are our choices. Most people just think too small.

Animals know how to be what they are. Humans are in process of becoming what their highest potential calls them to be. Y2K aside, there are many things we could stand to get and many opportunities to learn them ... now, and beyond 2000.

Diane

(P.S. Thanks for mentioning Ishmael again, Hardliner. Ill purchase it tomorrow, now that I'm back in good 'ole CA)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

Hardliner,

I understand that soldiers can't be political. So far, you seem to want it both ways: you are just following orders; but you are not "on automatic" (the robot fallacy). And you're right. The military does do what it's told, and the evidence of unconstitutionality would need to be more than clear for them to protest or rebel. On the other side, you aren't just doing what the men in sunglasses (and no insignia) tell you to. But under those circumstances, it would be easy to mislead troops, including officers. There are strategies within strategies: the anwer to "why are we attacking these particular coca fields and processing operations" could be "to wipe out the drug trade at the source," or "to wipe out the competition who refuse to play our way" or "to test new weaponry and keep our troops experienced and battle-hardened." Or all of the above, and more. That's why I picked on the VFW, who can say or do what they want. I don't see the drug war on vets' radar screen as a constitutional problem.

>> the civilian government makes the policy and the military follows orders within the framework of the Constitution. We don't always agree with those orders, but absent a clear violation of the Constitution, there is nothing that we can, or more importantly, should do by way of disobediance or even protest.

The key phrase is "absent a clear violation of the Constitution." Like Iran/Contra? Most of the meat of that scandal was deal with in closed session, under the auspices of "national security." Particularly the REX84 domestic dissident round-up and internment operations (planned by O. North with FEMA), brought up by Sen. Brooks and immediately quashed and concealed by Sen. Inouye (sp?). In some companies, "looking the other way" is required so frequently that it ought to be part of the basic drill. I don't expect much revolution in the ranks when the really egregious stuff begins; there will already have been a little here and a little there, to prepare the way. I'm lead to believe that the cultural and constitutional decay we seem to be in agreement on does extend to the military. The marines may be a kind of last bastion of military virtue, but, given the larger context, I'm still skeptical. Believe me, I would welcome having my mind changed on this score.

You assumed that I implied ALL drugs were smuggled by the military. Of course that's not true. Every possible vector is exploited. Including the military. The drug trade is international in scope, and is America's number two business in terms of dollars (#1 is arms). That will buy a lot of covert operations, and does.

>>As to low level smuggling by the military, that's been going on since long before British sailors used to smuggle opium and probably even before Greek and Roman galley crews smuggled whatever they might have smuggled. That is an unfortunate fact of life in anyone's military and is a never ending struggle. I seriously doubt that it will ever be entirely done away with.

I will assume that you are being honest, and this just isn't your area of concentration in military history. I recommend "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia," by Alfred Mc Coy. Again, the Marine Corp itself may be squeaky clean - that is my blind spot; I just don't know. You may counter that the CIA is not part of "the military." Try fighting a war without them, or some similar outfit. From my perspective (not beholden to the military as such, or loyal to any particular branch thereof) "the military" is the body, and "the alphabet agencies" are the brain (that's not meant as an insult to body; let's say the alphabets are the *reptillian* brain). It isn't a few "sailors." It's epidemic.

http://www.madcowprod.com/

I would also suggest the book "Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA."

And who would I like to deal with NBC aftermath? Specially trained national guard and volunteer civil defense units. Contingency plans for marines in the interim. But planning to establish marines as the force to deal with this is marching the Corps through a constitutional loophole. I would guess the framers exempted the navy from the no-standing-army-on-US soil rule because they didn't anticipate growth in the marines capacity for land-based operations. But this is where you can probably teach us something.

>> the only reason that I don't view the crossing of that boundry by Marines as so risky or wrong is that I am one and I have faith and trust in my fellow Marines that the crossing would be for exceptional reasons and in good cause and that we would not for any reason or through any trickery or chicanery sully our traditions or our values.

I take you (and by extension, your younger brothers) at your word. I'll let this be a (single) ray of light in an otherwise rapidly darkening landscape.

E.

I

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 05, 1999.

You are correct Diane, it is unfair to use that term "new ager". I apologize.

However I do not believe that what benefits humans benefits other life on earth, unless you bend the definition of "benefit" beyond recognition, to fit the case. I'll sure agree, as a good Cartesian dualist, that humans and all life, and probably all forms and atoms (as Jane Roberts/Seth constantly emphasized) have consciousness and souls.

Beyond that tautalogy, we are souls on ice, enmeshed in a predatory physical system. We may hope, wish, and pray that it were otherwise, but the facts today stand. Every human life, even that of vegetarians, means death, habitat destruction, and reproductive interference to other species. If you want to say, tough on them, they are biological losers, well, that's at least an intellectually honest postion.

So the hopeless fallacy I see developing in some quarters is:

if only - humans could get their own act together (peace, love, spirituality)

then - they'd live in peace and harmony with each other

then - this would benefit all of life.

That would only hold in a very negative sense - if we humans don't nuke each other, it would save at least the earth-life potential for other species to get a toehold and one day kick our butts the way we have kicked theirs.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 05, 1999.

Hardliner ---- I don't remember you ever answering this question: do you believe that the Marines as a group would resist other military units operating counter-Constitutionally within the United States?

I ask because you are insisting (rightly, I hope) on a particular code within the Marines, but you have not argued that this is general to the military.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

I have a sincere question for E., I'm open to learning:

You've often mentioned the idea the the 'real control' is entirely in the hands of a very few individuals, or maybe their families. And that therefore the messes we see around us should be traced back to, and laid at the doorstep of, these people, maybe a special subgroup of bankers.

But even if such a group exists, their control must be muted and diluted as they required so much support to implement their desires. That 'support' is really just the whole world and social/political/economic structure we see around us. Thus, in my view, at every level radiating out from the hypothesized "small core" there are enablers doing the work. And these enablers are in it for their own reasons, they are somehow benefiting. And they in turn require other enablers, etc. to implement all this. Thus, ultimately, we really all have the society and economy that we deserve, that we have collectively built, that we are collectively responsible for. When the Romanians really wanted the evil Cauceascu out, they hoisted him.

How is it meaningful to talk about complete control by so small a group, unless the group's wishes cohere at some level with a majority of the peoples' wishes, for better or worse ? In which case we don't really need the concept of the small, controlling group to explain the mess around us, we need only look in the mirror.

-RCat

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), February 05, 1999.

RC,

True, to a point. We are complicit "on some level." I would submit that level is preconscious. I would submit that we don't "need" the elite-control hypothosis to displace blame; the point is to break the spell by making ourselves conscious of how we are complicit, and what the scheme is, in which we are enmeshed and entranced. These elites exist, and they do what they do. They are awake, and bear more responsibility. We are asleep, and we're responsible, firstly, for waking ourselves up.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 05, 1999.

Everyone here probably knows the old saying that "the history of the world is the history of conspiracy" (I also remember the saying "a group of individuals only meets together privately to conspire against other groups"). Call it the Illuminati, the CFR, Biltberg, whatever. The ongoing, worldwide conspiracy that transcends time itself, dating back to the Egyptian pharaohs, and, some say, with possible extraterrestrial connections. Some even claim that extraterrestrial phenomena itself is not merely "aliens from space", but an evolutionary "control system".

We have an extreme amount of "information" at our fingertips these days. It's easy to mistake patterns in the data for something of human origin, like faces in the clouds. I'm not saying that E's belief system is wrong. Its certainly possible and for all I know, may exist in our future, or at least in some future.

But I look at the world as an extended version of the "BCCI octopus", the convoluted pyramid of corruption that was shown to be at the heart of the CIA's banking operations in the Regan days. Take the example below, meant to be an infinitesimally small snippet of the actual "web" of humanity's myriad organizations (going from political malevolent on the left to socially benevolent on the right):

BAD                                    GOOD
.                                         .
.                                         .
.            CIA            Fed           .
.                       FBI               .
. Mafia                              Red  .
.                 Vatican           Cross .
.                                         .
.      Teamsters              IBM   NASA  .
.                                         .

Now picture hypothetical interconnections between these groups, say Mafia to Teamsters, Teamsters to CIA, CIA to Vatican, Vatican to IBM, IBM to Red Cross. Indirectly, in this simple example, the Red Cross is connected to the Mafia! It sounds absurd, but via the "majik" of the political Invisible Hand, these connections are real.

So does George Bush really favor the drug war because he is one of the largest stockholders of Dow Chemical, and one of Dow Chemical's biggest customers is the drug cartels? It doesn't really matter, because regardless, that's just the way it is. And how do we know that Bush & Clinton's NWO is not just a natural process, albeit a very painful one, of forming the next phase of humanity? Follow the progression:

tribe

city-state

nation

...what comes next - planet?

Eastern mysticism and quantum theory say we are all a connected One and that individuality is a human thought process. Accordingly, everything actually happens at once and the distinction between past and future is an illusion. The synchronicity in life, even when it involves terrorizing concepts and spooky conspiracies, is there for a reason, seemingly to instruct us.

When I think about things in these terms, I can at least keep my paranoia down to a manageable level and sleep at night.

-- a (a@a.a), February 06, 1999.

Yes a ... next comes planet. (Think open communications on the World Wide Web).

The 64K question ... "Is it a planet with heart or a heartless one?"

Choices, choices.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 06, 1999.

With some trepidation, I feel I am wading into a battle of titans. :-)

little a, (Thanks, Diane)

Your progression seems UNnatural to me. To support that idea, I point to the major fear of Y2K: what will happen in the cities? The growth of cities dictates a fine-grained division of labor. And when we rise to the next transition level, from nation to ???, what will happen when there is no national competition? Where will a person go if he disagrees with (or is persecuted by) a planetary government?

Along the same line, the ebb and flow of the discussion evoked this question: What if the group deliberately being manipulated is composed of Y2K GI's?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), February 06, 1999.

Little a, your graph of group connections raises the interesting point of the "six degrees of separation" theory being extended to embrace organizations, not just individuals. You know that fashionable theory in sociology I'm sure...

Human nature: psycho-memetic essence composed of flashes of charity and hope blazing sporadically over a dark field of basic physical and ego desires. Y2K compliant, not likely to change soon. Will express itself regardless of the superficial social structure or names and labels of private and public organizations and institutions. EG wrote:

What if the group deliberately being manipulated is composed of Y2K GI's?

Yes, E G, that's why my step-father used to say, and people on y2k boards sometimes echo:

check six!

-RC

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), February 06, 1999.

E.,

I think we may be close to a resolution of some of this, but let's deal with several points and see.

It's not at all that I or anyone in the military want it both ways. That's simply the way that it is. We are not charged with nor do we pledge absolute obediance, that would be easy and mindless. We are charged with obediance to "appropriate" orders. This quite naturally brings up the question, "What is "appropriate"? I repeat: Whether there is a "proper" method to question one's orders or not is a gamble that will be forced upon those in the military. Ultimately, it must be an individual moral choice that will be judged by others according to not-yet-formulated rules which will depend on the outcome. History is indeed written by the victors. Many of the Marines that I know and have known are aware of the "strategy within a strategy" concept, but it is a certainty that the Framers were aware of it as well and they saw fit to put the military in such a position as to be subject to the judgment of the civilian government regarding strategy at those levels.

Again, to expect the VFW or any other veteran's lobby to grapple with the constitutional decay is, in my view, like expecting the SPCA to protest and demonstrate against the use of animal fur. Sympathetic? Sure, but not likely to become a new main focus for the group.

The federal law enforcement community also are sworn to support the Constitution, and that is where the problem lies. They, at the direction of the Judiciary are the element in our government that is charged with seeing that the Constitution is held sacrosanct. We both know how that story is being told.

Now to place things in an accurate perspective here, we must establish (as you so correctly point out) that the CIA is no part of the military although it is a para-military organization. I think it more proper to characterize them as "eyes and ears" rather than the brains, with the military as the body for warmaking purposes. The civilian government is supposed to be the brains. It doesn't work that way in practice though. The "eyes and ears" have sprouted plans and initiatives all their own, in defiance of everything and everyone else and cloaked in the secrecy of "national security". As I suspect you know, during the Viet Nam Era, a document existed that was commonly known as a "get out of jail free" card. This document was carried by intelligence operatives and gave them absolute carte blanche with the military establishment. If you want to find out about flag officer frustration, just get into a drinking session with some general or admiral who was danced around like a marionette by some smart talking ivy leaguer that had one of these cards!

Let's create a hypothetical drug running operation within the American Department of State, just for discussion purposes. Now these guys are moving large quantities of narcotic drug X in the diplomatic pouches, under seal. If they do so aboard civilian airliners, when they waltz through customs with an airy wave, no one accuses TWA of drug smuggling, and rightly so. Why then if the CIA does it, under seal of "national security" in a military aircraft should the military be held accountable? It simply boils down to a common question of authority/responsibility and who has which.

If I live to be 500 years old, I will never forget the moment that you described when the Senator from Hawaii "turned off the lights" during the testimony of Lt. Col. North. It was more than chilling and I will always regret that the image North left with America was of the Marine Corps in uniform. Make no mistake, he was entitled to that uniform and he was entitled to wear it. He earned every bit of that "fruit salad" too. But he was seconded to the intelligence community at that time, along with Admiral Poindexter and Robert McFarlane (another Marine Lt. Col.). All three had known each other at Annapolis and we will probably never know much more of the whole story than we know now. It was "palace intrigue" in the truest sense of the word. Warriors were involved, but they were not acting on behalf of the military, they were operatives of the intelligence community.

I should think that you know that in the closing days of WWII, when the Germans realized that they would soon lose, the remnants of the Abwehr made a deal with "Wild" Bill Donovan of the OSS to "come over", in exchange for the integration of their world-wide espionage network. These men held no more allegiance to Hitler than the CIA does to Clinton. This is truly an interface with those powerful people that you speak of so often. Who knows for sure what their values were/are? All that is certain is that the CIA grew out of the organization that was thus formed. That is history. They are not the military and the military, as best as I can see, wants as little to do with them as possible.

Although I agree that the constitutional decay extends to the military, I'm sure that it does not engulf it, or even fatally taint it. I think that you sell the rest of the military short as well. The Corps is a proud and cohesive unit, but the Navy, Army and Air Force are composed by honorable men too. The Corps has a corner on some things, but honor and dedication are equally at home in the rest of the military.

Now I'm not quite sure where the idea of "no-standing-army-on-US-soil" came from, but the facts of the matter are these. The Constitution specifically provides for, "the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;", the raising and supporting of armies and "To provide and maintain a navy." Concerning the Army, ". . .no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." No such qualification is placed on funding of the Navy. The 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits the quartering of soldiers in people's houses during peacetime without the consent of the owner and requires a law to regulate that practice in time of war. By providing for the physical plant (forts, etc.) to be built within the country and making laws about how the soldiery could and could not be quartered, it seems clear that the Framers intended that there be a permanent military and naval establishment on US soil. The two year funding restriction on the Army most likely represented a check against the possibility of the Army getting too powerful. Why they left the Navy outside this funding rule may have simply to do with the fact that we live on a world that is 75% water and they could not envision a time when a navy would not be needed. That's just a guess on my part however. Originally, the Marines were a part of the Navy proper, but over the years, things have changed. Technically and legally, they are separate now, but functionally they are one. This is particularly true in Naval Aviation. Today, the Department of the Navy is made up of two services, the Navy, headed by the Chief of Naval Operations (a four star admiral) and the Marine Corps, headed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (a four star general). Both report to the Secretary of the Navy who is a civilian and both are equal status members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Corps is the smallest of the four services (the Army is largest, followed by the Air Force and the Navy), and is spread out with Marines assigned to the State Department, the Navy, various intelligence services, and the Fleet Marine Forces which are the ground and air combat elements.

The Posse Comitatus Act is not part of the Constitution, but is an ordinary act of congress, embodied in the United States Code. My understanding is that it was enacted in response to the use of the Union Army in the post civil war South, for civil law enforcement purposes. Of course, it's rather hard to use a navy in the middle of the country (or it was then) and the Corps was still a part of the Navy at that time. The Air Force was not even imagined, although the act was amended later to include the Air Force.

BigDog,

I did answer your question as best as I could. To summarize, I said that the context that you provided amounted to a true civil war and that only a prophet could tell you who, what, where, etc. I'm not trying to duck the question, I simply don't know anything better than that to tell you. When it happened before, some Marines went South and some stayed Union. I don't know of any reason why another such split is impossible.

The Corps has its own traditions, specific values, and a very prominent espirit de corps, but that is not to say that the rest of the military does not contain honorable men and women who love their country as much as Marines do--it surely does and I would think that the same answer would apply to the entire military as to who would do what and when.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 06, 1999.

Thank you all for this thread. I hope I can contribute something that is not too far off track, but from the trenches of current family life here in the states. As of 5 years ago, half the kids in the local school in our affluent area came from single parent homes. The number has gone up exponentially form there. These include good families that contribute greatly to our community. I come from a single parent home, death is an incredible transition not only for the deceased. With my background it is heartbreaking to see families make these decisions based on today's economy.

Diane,

I fear if you spout your airy fairy nonsense in the communities we are able to cobble together in the future, you will wish that females were beholden to the rules of engagement that Hardliner is clarifying. If I recall correctly, didn't bardou say somehting to the effect awhile ago that while you're imagining - someone else is packing your rice & beans? Talk about agents provocateur, are you sure you're ad hoc?

P.S. The scout book people should look for is the boy scout fieldbook, not the handbook.

-- helen (hearme@roar.com), February 06, 1999.

Thanks Hardliner,

I just think that when things get out of hand, Ollie-syle, and plans for US concentration camps like REX84 are swept under the rug, we're not in Kansas anymore, and the flag officer in question should cut their marionette strings with prejudice. There is such a thing as a press leak.

And I'm not saying that military -any military- lacks principle or commitment, but the majority seem to lack knowledge of how these things work, and how they're being used. The question for me, in assessing the possible complicity of the military, is not "how much do they know;" but rather "how much do they want to know?" If the senses decieve, and lead the body into fatal corruption, and the mind is a prisoner of those senses, and wholly under their sway, then it's time for the body to "draw it's hand back from the hot stove," so to speak. What's going down in Oakland is more REX84, as far as I'm concerned. The govt. anticipates Y2k unrest and martial law, and this bullshit is just conditioning our psyches to a posture of total submission. I'm concerned - for your bros, as well as the citizens- that this bonehead manouver may have paradoxical effects.

And thanks for the clarification on the various branches of the service, posse commitatus, etc..

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 06, 1999.

Hi E Coli. Diane's unswamped a real doozy. Wait'll you see what she posts tonight (if she has energy after Oakland Y2K Expo).

Anybody complacent now will not be after reading Diane's upcoming post. Anybody laughing at the 'paranoids' will not laugh again.

Back to the original post on this thread for a moment, the core reason we're annoyed that the govt has decided to sub Y2K with 'terrorism' is that we feel this will delay/discourage sensible preparation.

Terrorism is random guerilla strikes of hatred/revenge involving angry fanatical factions. Y2K is cold clockwork machinery malfunction with a known general time-hit. Y2K is easier to prepare for, actually easier to understand. Who hasn't been peeved by "computer down?" But terrorism has a fearful fatalistic unknown paralyzing factor.

Our govt is at best cowardly to shrink from the ridicule over Y2K bug.
So easily leadership could give a national televised presentation outlining history/science of computer problem and cascading interconnected possible effects. If it were acknowledged up-front and honestly the snickers would die down. People would prepare.

Terrorism? People feel, "What can we do? Just eat, drink and be merry for the moment."

The more the govt beats around the bush the more dangerous and assymime it looks. If it could just be honest and straightforward ... but instead it is ever-burrowing corruption.

Hardliner, thank you for posting the beautiful poem. Evokes such longing ...

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 06, 1999.

Hardliner;

I know a former Coastie (Intel) who did 2 tours in country, who tells an interesting story about the document you referred to. It seems that he and several Army folks, officers and enlisted, were on their way back from some action with two prisoners, to be interogated at the firebase. A Capt. decided to interogate enroute. After several minutes of non-success, my friend requested that the Capt. stop. Capt was frustrated and pitched one of teh prisoners out of the bird and started to ask the other if he wanted to follow. did'n't get teh whole question out due to the inability to frame the words aright around the muzzle of the 16, which he was invited to continue eating.

Upon return to camp, my friend turned teh prisoner over to the "proper group" and went to clean up. As soon as he got out of teh shower he was requested to the base Commander's office. he showed up in what, fo him was UOD, jeans and t shirt. The Capt was waiting in the commander's outer office in starched dress uniform and started to ream K. a new orifice or two about his dress and grooming when the commander came out and indicated they should both proceed to his office, whereupon the Commander put the Capt into a West Point Plebe Brace and asked kev to identify himself. k. asked "do we have to do this?" and was told to go ahead. He proceeded to show the sweating Capt his boxtops, with the words "Hi. I'm the CIA. I do what I have to do, and you stay out of my way. Understand?" and was dismissed. the Capt left in about a week.

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 06, 1999.

War is the application of force to a political end. A soldier, in my opinion, is simply a very, very specialised diplomat.

The CIA are a political group. The military are not, especially. I've been reading about Vietnam, about Lansdale (a brilliant man), and John Paul Vann and David Hackworth and so on. It seems to me that when the military were running things, they really had no idea. They had all the force in the world, but they had no idea what to do with it.

The CIA, however, did know what to do with that force. Witness the Phoenix Program, for instance. In my opinion, if Westmoreland had quit and given the entire war to Colby to run, it would have been over by 1970. The CIA used force as a means to a political end. It was not the ONLY means, as the military (whose officers had trained their entire adult lives to do one thing) thought. It was A means.

I don't know what this has to do with this thread, which (I have to add) I find fascinating and hope continues, for a LONG time. But I wanted to contribute SOMETHING of use..

By the way-- Cat, Hardliner, E.Coli, if you haven't read them already, check out David Hackworth's book (I forget the title right now, but it's VERY good) and Neil Sheehan's book about John Paul Vann, which title I also forget.

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 07, 1999.

Posting the following article from American Handgunner (March/April), with our pal E. Coli in the audience is like throwing a bag of pigs' ears to my Scotch collies, but here goes. I guess Sec. Albright thinks it fine for the US to cruise-missle civilian workers in medicine factories at $1 million a pop, but I'm not to be trusted with my Remy 700 at the local range...

How Do You Say "Cold Dead Fingers" in Norwegian ?

Norway and Canada are leading a United Nations effort to limit ownership of firearms on a global basis. Norway hosted a 21-country conference in Oslo late in 1998 to consider the "control, collection, and reduction" of small arms worldwide. Norwegian foreign minister Knut Vollebaek said the world cannot wait for individual countries to enact regulations because "immediate action" is needed.

Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy called for a global treaty to ban the sale of small arms to private citizens. "This is part of the new humanitarian social agenda," Axworthy was reported to have said.

Meanwhile in the U.S., actor Michael Douglas declared himself to be a "messenger of peace" and promised to assist Norway and Canada in their efforts to ban firearms ownership worldwide.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a U.N. Security Council hearing on Africa that the world has a responsibility to "stem the proliferation" of guns in private hands.

Canada has instituted a plan to share all firearms registration information with the ATF and other international police agencies. Targeted are hunters and target shooters who visit Canada and "temporarily" register their firearms, as required by Canadian law.

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 07, 1999.

Thanks, RC, but I've already had a taste of the ears, and I won't be satisfied until I've eaten the whole pig.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 07, 1999.

Thanks, RC. Is there any doubt that the bankers who run the UN socialist front want to create a global farm and enslave us? I wouldn't trade their "new humanitarian social agenda" for one punctuation mark of the U.S. Constitution.

Here's that pig:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094500110X/qid=918497607/sr=1-9 /002-6405320-5115006

It weighs about as much as a real, non-metaphorical hog. If you want an appetizer, may I suggest the special:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0952614715/qid=918497707/sr=1-1 /002-6405320-5115006

Bon appetit, and see you all at the global UN summer camp (odds are we'll all be in with the rest of the "slow" children).

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 08, 1999.

To all who have posted on this thread or read it:
All empirical evidence, speculation, fact-searching, historical comparison, and analysis very much appreciated. New mind- + adrenalin-blowing developments on all these lines uncovered in this new thread, *A MUST-SEE* :

Military Test Exercises For "Urban Warrior" & National Institute for Urban Search and Rescue Web-Site

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 09, 1999.