Here come the secret poli- err... Civilian National Security Force.

[Black Jeebus]

It sounds like it would be just like the army, but without that sticking point of it being unconstitutional for the military to operate on American soil in anything other than a time of war.

Normally I avoid this sub like the plague, but this just scares the hell out of me. Especially because I don't remember anyone seeming to remark on this point. I'm including the short clip and the whole speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

Aside from the Japanese military which is called the National Defense Force (because they aren't allowed to have a military), can anyone else think of a case of a federally funded civilian paramilitary organization which wasn't some form of secret police? I don't want to lose this argument before it gets started but here's one great example of a "civilian national security force"

Sorry to piss in people's cornflakes.

[stillchris]

Yet one more be afraid post. You might try looking at a more extensive view of the speech than an edited youtube snippit.

Transcript

He is calling for public service from citizens. The security of the country depends on more than the military, "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school working in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.

You may not agree that serving your country helps provide security, but being afraid, very afraid, because of a edited youtube snippit doesn't say much for your decision making skills.

--chris

[Philistine]

{snip} can anyone else think of a case of a federally funded civilian paramilitary organization which wasn't some form of secret police?
{snip}

Well, there's the Civil Air Patrol. And the Coast Guard Auxiliary. And various federal civilian firefighting organizations at military bases and federal facilities.

But aside from that, I have to agree with stillchris' post.

Heck, if you think the proposal even comes close to a "paramilitary" organization--you could also throw in AmeriCorps...and the Peace Corps.

--Philistine

[Schiavona]

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

If he didn't mean a national security force he really shouldn't have used those words. What if McCain had said the very same thing in a speech?

And yes, I read the article cited.

[I_luv_saber]

This IS a subject you should, not necessarily be afraid, but be very cautious of. It's a very slippery slope, and if you're going to proceed, do so carefully.

When making such a decision (such as, for example, the ability to tap people's phones illegally) that has such power, you have to think... okay, THIS person may and probably will do good with this.... but what about 5 or 6 presidents down the road? Should we put something such as this in place that has the ability to have it's power abused in such a horrible way?

It is a very touchy subject, and not being at least cautious in it is foolhardy, IMO.

Now, when speaking of this particular article that was cited, seems to me Obama wasn't literally talking about making a National Security Force as some sort of organization, but rather referring to our public services, such as teachers, firefighters, policemen, and the like being vital to our nations security. A metaphorical NSF, if you will. And that I agree with. A strong infrastructure leads to better security, I think.

That's how I read it, but to be honest this article was all I read so far.

[I_luv_saber]

If he didn't mean a national security force he really shouldn't have used those words. What if McCain had said the very same thing in a speech?

I'm still pretty sure he meant it in a more metaphorical way.

That said I agree with the second part, McCain probably would've been eaten alive for saying that, even if he was also using it in a metaphorical sense.

[Gav]

Aside from the Japanese military which is called the National Defense Force (because they aren't allowed to have a military), can anyone else think of a case of a federally funded civilian paramilitary organization which wasn't some form of secret police? I don't want to lose this argument before it gets started but here's one great example of a "civilian national security force"

Well there's the Carabinieri in Italy and the Gendarmerie in France for starters. There may well be other similar groups in other countries.

In order for there to be "secret police" they have to be... well... secret (even if it's an open secret). I think you are confusing paramilitary police with Gestapo and Stasi style operatives.

[latenight]

If this happens, sign me up. I look great in boots.

[Gav]

If this happens, sign me up. I look great in boots.

Pass me the brain bleach.

[latenight]

Pass me the brain bleach.

LOL Here, have some mental floss.

[Black Jeebus]

Well there's the Carabinieri in Italy and the Gendarmerie in France for starters. There may well be other similar groups in other countries.

In order for there to be "secret police" they have to be... well... secret (even if it's an open secret). I think you are confusing paramilitary police with Gestapo and Stasi style operatives.

The problem with those examples is that both units predate organized police forces.

To the posters who want to exclaim that the National Defense Force is talking about strengthening security through public works- I can't see how comparing the power of civic organizations to the power of the military can help you to imagine anything other than an organization like the military. If he had stopped with the funding that would have been one thing, but he didn't. Imagine for a second I say something takes up as much room as apple, it could still be an orange, now imagine I say it is red like an apple. The thing I'm talking about might still be an orange, but describing it like an apple isn't a good way to help you imagine it if it is in fact an orange.

Like I said I try to avoid political discussions, because anything one person believes is likely not going to be swayed by discussions over a largely anonymous internet forum, and for the most part I have avoided even listening to the people exclaiming reasons to be afraid of Obama, because frankly I think most of the reasons to be afraid of Obama apply to McCain as well. One thing I will always stand against however is the further expansion of the federal government into my everyday life.

The impact of any politician on everyday life should be inversely proportional to the size of their constituency.

[Gav]

The problem with those examples is that both units predate organized police forces.

That's completely irrelevant to the question you are asking.

And you've already invoked Godwin's Law which further suggests your thinking is muddled on this.

BTW: The Japanese forces are an army in all but name. Sure they're a small group (compared with the likes of the UK, US and Chinese armies) but they are essentially the same thing.

[Black Jeebus]

That's completely irrelevant to the question you are asking.

And you've already invoked Godwin's Law which further suggests your thinking is muddled on this.

BTW: The Japanese forces are an army in all but name. Sure they're a small group (compared with the likes of the UK, US and Chinese armies) but they are essentially the same thing.

I agree the Japanese forces are a military organization. They are certainly exempt from this discussion.

Your examples are exempt at least in my mind, by the fact that both organizations have their roots in being an organized force designed to protect travel throughout the interior of their nations. Moreover they were created because there was no other form of law enforcement available. I'm pretty sure the US has existing law enforcement infrastructure to work from. The only reason I can think of to create some sort of greater (as I would not liken the reach and power of the US law enforcement to that of the US military) law enforcement agency is because you either think the current agencies aren't allowed enough freedom to operate, or you want a structure without all the ties and loyalties the existing one has.

[stillchris]

It is interesting how the idea of security force automatically gets translated to military or police. Security can also be enhanced by reducing enemies abroad through help and negotiation. By mitigating the domestic forces that lead to unrest and problems. By easing economic problems both at home and abroad.

When you speak of increasing the security of your family does it automatically mean buying guns and stocking the family fortress. For most I would say no it does not. It may mean economic security, it may mean neighborhood watches, that evil civilian security force, it may mean getting, or retaining, a job.

This is just more right wing FUD. I saw a shooting star the sky is falling, did you know Obama took the last piece of pizza, what kind of president would do that? Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

--chris

[Philistine]

{snip}
The only reason I can think of to create some sort of greater (as I would not liken the reach and power of the US law enforcement to that of the US military) law enforcement agency is because you either think the current agencies aren't allowed enough freedom to operate, or you want a structure without all the ties and loyalties the existing one has.

Just to be clear--do you still think that's what Obama is actually proposing?

Is there one single thing, other than his use of the term which would lead you to that position?

--Philistine

[I_luv_saber]

I don't deny he used poor words to describe what he was trying to say... but I still don't think he was proposing some sort of new organization.

That's completely irrelevant to the question you are asking.

What makes you say that? It's a valid point. The infrastructure is already there. That's what police are for. And if you're speaking of a national level, then the FBI or US Marshals. Or Homeland Security *shudder*.

Secondly, it has far too much power to be abused, if not by this president, then future presidents. Who would this force be answerable to? What kind of oversight would it have? Would it be (fairly) transparent? We've already crossed too far into that field with illegal wire-tappings and torture and holding prisoners with no charges because they are an enemy of the state (i.e "terrorist"), for as long as we want. Let's be careful of what power we are giving government here. You may like Obama and how he'd use it, but that doesn't mean you can just take it all away when we get another nut in the White House.

It'd be silly to make a new force for this when the infrastructure is already there anyways. If anything, then add funding to that, and institute reform in areas needed.

It is interesting how the idea of security force automatically gets translated to military or police. Security can also be enhanced by reducing enemies abroad through help and negotiation. By mitigating the domestic forces that lead to unrest and problems. By easing economic problems both at home and abroad.

I'd still like to know what power that entails.
And maybe I'm being a bit daft in this logic but the name "National Security Force" doesn't quite ring of negotiators or things of the like. Force doesn't usually sound like something aside from military/police stuff. I think they should change the name of this organization that doesn't yet exist if that's the case .

This is, of course, assuming you think that's what Obama was speaking of anyways. I think he just spoke a little poorly/unclearly.

[I_luv_saber]

This may be some slight thread drift, but in the same general vein. Seems like many people, having lived so long in a society with as many rights and liberties as we do, are taking those rights for granted (examples in my previous post). Whether it be the right to vote, the right to be protected from illegal search and seizures, or what have you. There's nothing wrong with a little fear... or a better word would be "defensiveness", when it comes to ones rights and the possibilities they may be lost or encroached upon.

As long as you don't take it too far, some healthy defensiveness of that is a good thing.

[Schiavona]

Seems like many people, having lived so long in a society with as many rights and liberties as we do, are taking those rights for granted (examples in my previous post). Whether it be the right to vote, the right to be protected from illegal search and seizures, or what have you. There's nothing wrong with a little fear... or a better word would be "defensiveness", when it comes to ones rights and the possibilities they may be lost or encroached upon.

As long as you don't take it too far, some healthy defensiveness of that is a good thing.

I like the word the people who founded this country used, vigilance.

[Schiavona]

It is interesting how the idea of security force automatically gets translated to military or police.

*snip*

When you speak of increasing the security of your family does it automatically mean buying guns and stocking the family fortress. For most I would say no it does not.

Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

--chris

When I talk of increasing my family's SECURITY FORCE, I might be talking about hiring guards, not diversifying our investments.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

The structure of this one quote (I haven't been able to find a complete copy of this speech) leads a reader, or listener, to believe that he is talking about some sort of national police/military force that is under the Federal government's control. Right now our military is constrained by law from operating within the US. We have the National Guard for that-under the control of the individual states.

Once again, if he didn't mean National Security Force he, or his speech writer shouldn't have used those words.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The structure of this one quote (I haven't been able to find a complete copy of this speech) leads a reader, or listener, to believe that he is talking about some sort of national police/military force that is under the Federal government's control. Right now our military is constrained by law from operating within the US. {snip}

Well, the military (apart from the Coast Guard) is constrained by law as acting as law enforcement in the US. They're obviously not constrained from operating within the US for other purposes. You know... national security purposes.

Once again, if he didn't mean National Security Force he, or his speech writer shouldn't have used those words.

I suppose that's a point. But if other than this one pretty obscure reference, he's never given even the slightest hint or indication that he's proposing a vast new police/military force (and, in fact, when the context of the speech suggested no such thing), maybe it's safe to say it's not something he's looking to do. Just saying...

--Philistine