View Full Version : What do you all think of an Army patrol cruising through your neighborhood?
JediMindTricks
09-26-08, 09:21
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
I don't know about you all but I don't like the idea.
If my neigborhood just got flattened by a hurricane, flood, volcano, tornado, or earthquake I could probably use the help.
IT shouldnt really bother anyone when you think about it for a minute. With Posse Comitaus (sp) the only way an active army (or navy, MC, USAF) force can take on anything more than a 'picking up the trash' role would be if all forces in an area were federalized AND martial law was declared. Thats why, during natural disaster, the NG troops are the ones doing things like patrols, traffic control, anti-looting ops, etc. The active duty troops are relegated to picking up trash.
I don't think about it . . . .
because the unit referred to in the article is not an "Army patrol" but members of the Army serving in a pure humanitarian role - not, as pointed out above in any type of civil law enforcement role. They are always welcome in my neighborhood if a tornado strikes.
Alpha Sierra
09-26-08, 16:09
I do not want ANY military involvement in civil affairs in the United States. Not even picking up trash.
My behavior towards any military personnel invloved in any of this would be less than cordial.
QuietShootr
09-26-08, 17:21
Bad, bad idea.
Couple that with the Obama Truth Squads http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
and this is really not resembling the country I thought I grew up in.
I do not want ANY military involvement in civil affairs in the United States. Not even picking up trash.
I understand your position, but the military IS involved in many civil affairs that you would proabably consider more important than picking up trash. Whether they take their uniform off, or are "private civilians" working for the Pentagon, there are many programs they work on, aid in, and consult for that are basic "civil affairs." They do not and may not engage in law enforcement, and for the most part according to what I know they do not. But, just for the sake of this discussion, does it really matter if Arizona trains National Guard in ICE standards to patrol and detain illegal entrants to the U.S. when the alternative is to wait for the extra promised Border Guards that have not come and are not coming? In the mean time, the Mexican Cartels are crossing the border and murdering people in Phoenix, Dallas and other southwest cities.
Alpha Sierra
09-26-08, 20:17
I understand your position, but the military IS involved in many civil affairs that you would proabably consider more important than picking up trash. Whether they take their uniform off, or are "private civilians" working for the Pentagon, there are many programs they work on, aid in, and consult for that are basic "civil affairs." They do not and may not engage in law enforcement, and for the most part according to what I know they do not. But, just for the sake of this discussion, does it really matter if Arizona trains National Guard in ICE standards to patrol and detain illegal entrants to the U.S. when the alternative is to wait for the extra promised Border Guards that have not come and are not coming? In the mean time, the Mexican Cartels are crossing the border and murdering people in Phoenix, Dallas and other southwest cities.
Your example is a legitimate use of military power: stopping the invasion of our sovereign terriroty.
But that's about it.
condition 1
09-26-08, 20:30
Just be glad it's our military.
condition 1
09-26-08, 20:31
Just be glad it's our military.
I do not want ANY military involvement in civil affairs in the United States. Not even picking up trash.
My behavior towards any military personnel invloved in any of this would be less than cordial.
Discounting the vital role that some of our military play in the security and protection of this country in your own backyard would be wrong. I refer to title 32 soldiers only, who can go armed at their governors consent. Being less than cordial to these troops would be foolish as they are your neighbors and the sons and daughters of your friends, your coworkers, the people you meet on the street.
No one ever wants to see federalized title 10 troops roaming the streets.
Just a friendly 02 from a guy who has been / still is there.
Discounting the vital role that some of our military play in the security and protection of this country in your own backyard would be wrong. I refer to title 32 soldiers only, who can go armed at their governors consent. Being less than cordial to these troops would be foolish as they are your neighbors and the sons and daughters of your friends, your coworkers, the people you meet on the street.
No one ever wants to see federalized title 10 troops roaming the streets.
Just a friendly 02 from a guy who has been / still is there.
+10 and a big THANK YOU DarkX
Your example is a legitimate use of military power: stopping the invasion of our sovereign terriroty.
But that's about it.
Incorrect. Using the national guard for border enforcement against individuals entering our country illegally is not "stopping the invasion" by a foreign state at the direction of the President and/or Congress. As DarkX pointed out, they are soldiers operating pursuant to Title 32. If you don't want them around to perform these type of civil affairs then we'll ship all of the illegal immigrants, criminals, and drug traffickers up to your neighborhood and you can deal with them with your local PD. We're drowning down here and are happy for the help the military units provide to augment the overwhelmed Border Patrol and ICE.
Bad, bad idea.
Couple that with the Obama Truth Squads http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
and this is really not resembling the country I thought I grew up in.
WTF is up with THAT? County and city offcials using their official positions of authority to "remind" people that Barrack O. wants to cut taxes and is a Christian? I'm getting sick of this crap ... no matter what they are going to make sure Barrack wins this election.
My behavior towards any military personnel invloved in any of this would be less than cordial.
Because the E-2's and E-3's are the policy makers right?:rolleyes:
Alpha Sierra
09-27-08, 22:09
Because the E-2's and E-3's are the policy makers right?:rolleyes:
Not my problem.
Not my problem.
Then what is your problem? Sitting back and lobbing verbal grenades at our enliisted troops for performing functions and duties that give you a feeling that it is time to cry "Revolution!"??? NEWS FLASH: Jefferson's vision of an America without a national standing army and a nation full of farmers didn't catch on. Maybe it is time to wake up to that fact and make a few things your "problem" instead of simply verbal grenade lobbing. . . . or go live under the blanket of freedom provided by another nation.
Not my problem.
That is an ignorant statement especially considering the role these servicemembers would be used in. I am curious if your less than cordial attitude would change if it was service members that came to assist you or your family during a natural disaster.
cavscout82nd
09-28-08, 09:20
speaking as a former active duty Army soldier(6yrs); the thought of a bunch of 18 or 19 year old E-3 playing cop scares the hell out of me. Soldiers are trained to fight; not be first responders.
winning hearts and minds when liberating a foriegn country is one thing. Trying the same thing with your own countryman is a whole nother matter.
speaking as a former active duty Army soldier(6yrs); the thought of a bunch of 18 or 19 year old E-3 playing cop scares the hell out of me. Soldiers are trained to fight; not be first responders.
winning hearts and minds when liberating a foriegn country is one thing. Trying the same thing with your own countryman is a whole nother matter.
I would argue that todays soldiers are infinitely more qualified as first responders than they were even 5 years ago. Who said anything about U.S. troops being used to liberate and win hearts and minds on American soil?
I am not in favor of using active duty troops in CONUS because of the impact it may have on the ongoing commitments the United States has around the world. But to think there is some nefarious plot/purpose strikes me as a little "tinfoil hatish."
I would argue that todays soldiers are infinitely more qualified as first responders than they were even 5 years ago.
I second that statement.
I have been trying to avoid this thread since it is bound to bring out the worst in some people. My only concern with this policy is that it is in addition to everything else a soldier has to deal with during their short time between deployments. I am all in favor of giving the soldiers the most time with their families in between 12 to 15 month combat tours.
The roles soldiers will serve in with this plan are already happening. The only thing new is that they are pinning it onto a specific unit. It also justifies additional training and resources to cover more possible contingencies.
Alpha Sierra
09-28-08, 11:00
That is an ignorant statement especially considering the role these servicemembers would be used in. I am curious if your less than cordial attitude would change if it was service members that came to assist you or your family during a natural disaster.
I wore this country's uniform so you and DarrinD can spare me the lectures.
Do you two think "relief" efforts is where military use on domestic soil is going to end? If so you are both extraordinarily naive.
And no, my attitude would not change if the military (or anyone from the federal government) came to "help". I don't need nor want their help. That is why I work, save, and prepare.
Alpha Sierra
09-28-08, 11:03
Then what is your problem? Sitting back and lobbing verbal grenades at our enliisted troops for performing functions and duties that give you a feeling that it is time to cry "Revolution!"??? NEWS FLASH: Jefferson's vision of an America without a national standing army and a nation full of farmers didn't catch on. Maybe it is time to wake up to that fact and make a few things your "problem" instead of simply verbal grenade lobbing. . . . or go live under the blanket of freedom provided by another nation.
My problem is seeing my country (the one I served in the Navy) turned into a third world junta. This is exactly how that regression begins: more power for the Army.
George Santayana was right.
I wore this country's uniform so you and DarrinD can spare me the lectures.
Do you two think "relief" efforts is where military use on domestic soil is going to end? If so you are both extraordinarily naive.
And no, my attitude would not change if the military (or anyone from the federal government) came to "help". I don't need nor want their help. That is why I work, save, and prepare.
Just because one wears the uniform does not mean he has ANY insight as to what the operational and strategic goals of the military are (in this case humanitarian assistance in CONUS due to natural disaster). So if you take my comments as a lecture then perhaps you are sensitive to critiques of your position.
As for not needing "their" help, you have the right to decline it. No sweat off my back and actually would probably make someone else's job much easier. Good on you.
Finally, I think that if the active duty military were to be used more in CONUS some laws would have to change. I also think a lot of servicemembers would take issue with being used in a manner that violates Posse Comitatus. I know I would.
speaking as a former active duty Army soldier(6yrs); the thought of a bunch of 18 or 19 year old E-3 playing cop scares the hell out of me. Soldiers are trained to fight; not be first responders.
winning hearts and minds when liberating a foriegn country is one thing. Trying the same thing with your own countryman is a whole nother matter.
Having done both, dont be that worried. The kids will obey their TLs and SLs. In fact the kids are scared shitless of stepping out of line. So if anything they tend to err on the side of being extremely polite and courteous. Much more so than the LEOs that they will be working with and under. Mind you when I did this (hurricanes Andrew and Opal) I was no longer title 10, but title 32. The title 10 troops were left with picking up the garbage.
Ok funny side bar. Hurricane Andrew. I'm recently off active duty and now in the the FLARNG. We are in the LEO support role (running road blocks at night, traffic control during the day, patrols at night, nabbing looters during the day, etc..). Well the 82nd gets deployed down there after week one. Of course they come down there with their attitude that they are the best of the best of the best. They are itching to billy bad ass it on the scene and are pissed that they are limited to picking up trash. One night while patrolling we find them walking around with axe handels, branches, etc.. We're like "WTF are you idiots doing here? Get your ass back to your assembly area!" They are none too pleased and let us know in a most emphatic manner, but they have to comply. We escort them back to their vehicles and they leave.
In revenge next day: Were running a disaster relief point at 416th (st or ave, I cant remember) and US1. Were handing out all sorts of donated supplies to the people. Many times we're approached by folks wanting to talk. No problem it helps them deal with the situation and we're more than happy to oblige. Well one of em asks about the soldiers with those 'funny red hats'. We're like "Oh you mean those maroon berets? Well that's easy. It means that they are in the Army band. If you want you can go up to them and ask them what instrument they pay. They are quite proud of their role of providing music and might be induced to play something for you". So the civilian did go over there and asked and they were polite enough in their response. However the looks WE got from the 82nd were hilarious. Yeah we could be bastards :D
Alpha Sierra
09-28-08, 12:54
Just because one wears the uniform does not mean he has ANY insight as to what the operational and strategic goals of the military are (in this case humanitarian assistance in CONUS due to natural disaster).
The fact that those operational and strategic goals are being discussed in any context other than defense against foreign attack are reason enough for me to worry.
I wore this country's uniform so you and DarrinD can spare me the lectures.
I happen to be an attorney who has studied the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so does that give me any special position to tell you to "spare ME" any lectures on what the military can and can not legally do. If you don't like it, fine . . . get up on your roof and just sit there during a flood with a sign that says "Don't rescue me federal military, I'm waiting for my local PD." That didn't work out so well for the people in NO in the aftermath of Katrina. But since you're prepared, "good on you" as Charger stated.
When you get right down to it, you have a paranoid fear that permitting these types of humanitarian efforts will turn our nation into a "third world junta." Whooaaaa! I respect your service and that you wore the uniform, but that's all you did - that alone gives you no special insight into this issue. Now, if we were talking about whatever your specific experiences and commands were in the Navy, that would be different. So, call it a lecture or a reality check, but I won't stand by while someone trashes our enlisted soldiers who are (1) acting within existing law and (2) trying to HELP fellow Americans.
NEXT THREAD . . . . probably :confused:
Let me put on my tinfoil for a moment.
What happens when "civil unrest" becomes "anyone who is armed"..."anyone out past 8pm"..."doesnt report to a shelter"..etc?
Will they help me out of my home?or relieve me of my firearms(for my own good of course)?...as part of their "humanitarian" role?
Well since your tinfoil hat is on I might as well put mine on to answer your question.
I am sure it will happen right after aliens give us the technology for flux capacitors for our single seat starships:p
Do you two think "relief" efforts is where military use on domestic soil is going to end? If so you are both extraordinarily naive.
Lets see, thats where their work has stopped in the past, then you have those pesky laws that prevent it, so yeah, thats where it will end barring the end of the constitution being the governing document of this nation. If that happens there is a shit load more to be worried about than federal troops patrolling the area.
The fact that those operational and strategic goals are being discussed in any context other than defense against foreign attack are reason enough for me to worry.
Well you should have been worreid then since at least the 80s. Heck you may need to feel guilty as you were a part of those plans when you were in.
Let me put on my tinfoil for a moment.
What happens when "civil unrest" becomes "anyone who is armed"..."anyone out past 8pm"..."doesnt report to a shelter"..etc?
Will they help me out of my home?or relieve me of my firearms(for my own good of course)?...as part of their "humanitarian" role?
Barring a federalization of troops and a declaration of martial law by the President (about as likely as me winning the lottery), all that could happen (out past curfew) is the following: NG troops (by law it can't be active army, MC, etc..), working under the supervision of an LEO, see you off your property. They stop you. They either return you home or they detain you for interviewing by the LEO. LEO then makes final disposition (arrest or sending you on your way). Keep in mind that even NG troops do not have any arrest powers. They can only detain you until an LEO is able to investigate the situation. To be honest best to be picked up by NG troops any ways. Having worked with several agencies, some were good to my then 22 year old eyes. Some (like Metro-Dade) appeared to be freaking assholes in how they dealt with the public. Now that Im a bit older and wiser, I understand where they were coming from and the stresses they were under and considering it all, I can dig how they were past the 'nice-nice' phase when dealing with the dirt bags we were encountering.
Now you are sitting on your front porch past curfew. The NG troops see you, then you wave at them and they wave at you. They stop, see how everything is going, tell you to be careful, remind you that there is a curfew and that you need to remain on your property and are on their way (this is a generalization of what happens).
I know, anti-climatic.
30 cal slut
09-28-08, 16:53
it would be real bad for me ...
because i likely would have major hardware envy.
:D
thopkins22
09-28-08, 17:21
I intentionally broke curfew multiple times last week here in Houston. Curfews belong in North Korea and other police states.
However there's a big difference between what NG troops and police were doing after Katrina(outright theft of firearms from law abiding people), and what they did here in Houston(unarmed, uniformed, and polite men and women giving out MRE's and water.)
Do I think we're seeing a trend of militarization of non military things in the US? Yes, but I don't think giving aid to people is past the line.
LOL I almost typed 'giving aids to people'.
winning hearts and minds when liberating a foriegn country is one thing. Trying the same thing with your own countryman is a whole nother matter.
Sure its easy
Two to the Heart, One to the Mind.
Seems to be the Iraq formula, I'm sure it will work here!
Alpha Sierra
09-28-08, 18:04
Sure its easy
Two to the Heart, One to the Mind.
Seems to be the Iraq formula, I'm sure it will work here!
Is this supposed to be funny?
cavscout82nd
09-28-08, 20:32
I would argue that todays soldiers are infinitely more qualified as first responders than they were even 5 years ago. Who said anything about U.S. troops being used to liberate and win hearts and minds on American soil?
I am not in favor of using active duty troops in CONUS because of the impact it may have on the ongoing commitments the United States has around the world. But to think there is some nefarious plot/purpose strikes me as a little "tinfoil hatish."
It has nothing to do with "tinfoil hatish". The point is these are kids. I was 18 when I went into the service. When I graduated from OSUT. I was a 18 year old kid who could March, Shoot a few weapons, and yell "yes sir" or "yes sergent". When I graduated from jump school, I was still an 18 year old kid who knew how to exit a C-130 properly.
the point is maturity. why not have 18 year old police officers??
When I was an 18 year old PVT. I and every one of my fellow 18-19 year old enlistedmen thought we all were bad ass paratroopers who could take on the world. Looking back 19 years later.; we were dumb ass kids just following orders.
Natl Guard or Corp of Engineers = Yes. Active duty combat arms or MP = NO!!
It has nothing to do with "tinfoil hatish". The point is these are kids. I was 18 when I went into the service. When I graduated from OSUT. I was a 18 year old kid who could March, Shoot a few weapons, and yell "yes sir" or "yes sergent". When I graduated from jump school, I was still an 18 year old kid who knew how to exit a C-130 properly.
When I was an 18 year old PVT. I and every one of my fellow 18-19 year old enlistedmen thought we all were bad ass paratroopers who could take on the world. Looking back 19 years later.; we were dumb ass kids just following orders.
How long ago was that? I agree with the decision making processes that an 18 year olds have are far more immature than the Plt Sgt/Cmdr but todays young people are vastly smarter and better trained than most who have left the service (excluding those who recently left) give them credit for.
But whatever, you know what you know and that works for you.
CarlosDJackal
09-29-08, 10:54
I do not want ANY military involvement in civil affairs in the United States. Not even picking up trash.
My behavior towards any military personnel invloved in any of this would be less than cordial.
I am currently assigned to a Civil Affairs Battalion in the Army Reserve (we have counterparts in the Active Army as well). Of all the units in the Army, Civil Affairs units are the most applicable in times of disasters such as experienced by those hit by Katrina and Ike. Our job is to assess what a community needs and do our best to make it happen regardless of where it may be. If we're good enough to be sent to foreign lands to provide this type of service (under fire no less), what gives hypocritical ignoramuses like you the right so say that we cannot or should not be allowed to provide the same HUMANITARIAN service to our own communities? :mad:
You can bitch, moan, and thump your chest and all you want right now. But when your loved ones are sick and slowly dying from dysentery because you have no access to clean water, food, or medical treatment; I can guarantee that you'll be kissing our butts when we offer you the very lifeline that might save your family members from death or disease.
Do us a favor, if (God forbid) your community ever suffers such a disaster, you should put up a sign that states: "I will not accept any type of assistance from the U.S. Military!!" so that we can bypass your home and put our efforts towards helping your neighbors who appreciate out efforts. If you're in a flood zone, make sure you put the message on your rooftop so that Army or Army Reserve Aviator can clearly read it and move onto the next group of disaster victims. :rolleyes:
ADDED: I personally don't think that the Military, outside of the National Guard, should be involved in any kind of Law Enforcement activities unless asked to do so by the State or local government or in defense of their own personnel. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
09-29-08, 11:15
...the point is maturity. why not have 18 year old police officers??...
Because the Klintonites passed a law that makes it difficult to hire someone who is younger than 21- years old. Basically, if you were to hire someone less than 21 to be a cop, they would have to leave their issued handgun at the station once they took off the uniform because they cannot by Federal Law possess a handgun. While this works for Corrections officers and Jailers (most aren't issued handguns anyway); it puts the Street Cop in serious jeopardy.
I personally think it's very hypocritical to tell an 18-year old that they can do LEO things on a military base or in some foreign land armed to the teeth; but they are not good enough to be a cop or even legally possess a handgun in their own country. But that seems to be the demokratic party way. JM2CW.
Because the Klintonites passed a law that makes it difficult to hire someone who is younger than 21- years old. Basically, if you were to hire someone less than 21 to be a cop, they would have to leave their issued handgun at the station once they took off the uniform because they cannot by Federal Law possess a handgun. While this works for Corrections officers and Jailers (most aren't issued handguns anyway); it puts the Street Cop in serious jeopardy.
There are states that allow the hiring and certification of 18yo officers, and have <21yo LEOs working their streets.
Provisions of federal law/regulation you allude to pertain to the purchase/transfer of handguns and handgun ammunition, not simple possession.
I personally think it's very hypocritical to tell an 18-year old that they can do LEO things on a military base or in some foreign land armed to the teeth; but they are not good enough to be a cop or even legally possess a handgun in their own country. But that seems to be the demokratic party way. JM2CW.
It's a much larger discussion, but it made sense in my mind when I began seeing the relative differences in training minimums, structure and supervision, regulation, discretion, the many accountabilities, and civil liabilities between the two.
The older I get, and/or the more cops I interact with, the older I think new LE recruits ought to be. :D
+10 and a big THANK YOU DarkX
You are Welcome DarrinD.
I am that active duty title 32 soldier and that does give me the insight, knowledge, training and real world experience to say what I said.
I know what I am trained to do and with/for whom [on many levels].
Not all title 32 soldiers are traditional guardsmen. Not all...
thopkins22
09-29-08, 20:43
Basically, if you were to hire someone less than 21 to be a cop, they would have to leave their issued handgun at the station once they took off the uniform because they cannot by Federal Law possess a handgun.
You can legally own a handgun under 21. You just can't purchase one from an FFL.
QuietShootr
09-30-08, 18:01
Because the Klintonites passed a law that makes it difficult to hire someone who is younger than 21- years old. Basically, if you were to hire someone less than 21 to be a cop, they would have to leave their issued handgun at the station once they took off the uniform because they cannot by Federal Law possess a handgun.
Way wrong answer. There have been, and are, 18 year old cops. And in my state, you only have to be 18 to have a license to carry.
Now, IMO, 18 is too young to be a cop. The independent judgment, and the responsibility that comes with the ability to exercise that judgment, are just not present in 99% of 18 year olds. They make fine Soldiers and Marines, but (as a former 17-year-old infantryman, I think I am qualified to render an opinion) they're not generally encouraged to wipe their ass without supervision until they're at least E-3 or E-4.
18-year-old soldiers on the streets of Fallujah, no problem. 18-year-old soldiers on the streets of Indianapolis? Do not want.
Alpha Sierra
09-30-08, 18:12
I am currently assigned to a Civil Affairs Battalion in the Army Reserve (we have counterparts in the Active Army as well). Of all the units in the Army, Civil Affairs units are the most applicable in times of disasters such as experienced by those hit by Katrina and Ike. Our job is to assess what a community needs and do our best to make it happen regardless of where it may be. If we're good enough to be sent to foreign lands to provide this type of service (under fire no less), what gives hypocritical ignoramuses like you the right so say that we cannot or should not be allowed to provide the same HUMANITARIAN service to our own communities? :mad:
You can bitch, moan, and thump your chest and all you want right now. But when your loved ones are sick and slowly dying from dysentery because you have no access to clean water, food, or medical treatment; I can guarantee that you'll be kissing our butts when we offer you the very lifeline that might save your family members from death or disease.
Do us a favor, if (God forbid) your community ever suffers such a disaster, you should put up a sign that states: "I will not accept any type of assistance from the U.S. Military!!" so that we can bypass your home and put our efforts towards helping your neighbors who appreciate out efforts. If you're in a flood zone, make sure you put the message on your rooftop so that Army or Army Reserve Aviator can clearly read it and move onto the next group of disaster victims. :rolleyes:
ADDED: I personally don't think that the Military, outside of the National Guard, should be involved in any kind of Law Enforcement activities unless asked to do so by the State or local government or in defense of their own personnel. JM2CW.
Don't lecture me, punk. You are everything that is wrong with letting troops loose on our own soil. You also think far too highly of yourself and what you do. I know how to take care of myself and mine. Don't need, nor want, your help. Keep on rolling/flying by.
Your last statememt (about NG getting into LE if asked by police) dishonors the uniform, BTW. I would hope that any trooper with a lick of sense would stand his ground and disobey such orders.
Gents -
This thread has outlived its usefulness.
- YRAC
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.