Re: Military assistance

Current Events » in reply to the CNN article

Tom Brosz — 10/15/2002 10:25:50 AM (archived)

I can understand the concern about setting a bad precedent here, but it does seem a shame to not be able to take advantage of the technology available to the military. The CNN article describes a scenario where this can hopefully be done without getting afoul of the law. Does this procedure work as advertised? Is the law still safe?

Would there be a better way of utilizing military capability without getting the military directly involved?

The whole thread (13 posts)

“And Awaaay We Go!!” - Bowser - 10/15/2002 9:18:31 AM
- Cdn military and law enforcement - McFly - 10/16/2002 3:01:46 PM
  - Re: Cdn military and law enforcement - LJ - 10/16/2002 3:58:36 PM
    - thnx for the correction..I should've known that n/t (n/t) - McFly - 10/16/2002 4:30:24 PM
    - Bowser is just being Mr.Contrarian n/t (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 10/16/2002 2:22:33 PM
  - Re: Sounds like a border dispute, and therefore outside civilian jurisdiction . . . - D. Spires - 10/16/2002 3:43:40 PM
- the CNN article - ebnelson - 10/15/2002 9:56:28 AM
  - Re: Military assistance - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2002 10:25:50 AM
    - The precedent was set years ago... - Larry J - 10/16/2002 1:29:01 PM
    - Re: It would work fine -- here, at any rate . . . - D. Spires - 10/15/2002 10:41:47 AM
      - I'm greatly comforted! - Bowser - 10/15/2002 2:19:06 PM
        
        Re: Bowser . . . - D. Spires - 10/16/2002 2:00:04 PM
- Are ou talking about the report of Rumsfeld authorising military assist in DC?§ (n/t) - ebnelson - 10/15/2002 9:50:15 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (13 posts)