View Full Version : Is anybody bothered by this?
http://www.infowars.com/us-army-puts-soldiers-on-the-street-in-alabama-in-response-to-shootings/
The U.S. Army dispatched soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, a small southern town where a rampaging gunman killed 10 people on Tuesday. This obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the federal uniformed services from exercising state and local law enforcement was completely ignored by the corporate media with the exception of Reuters and the London Telegraph....
If this is true then yeah, I'm bothered by it.
MisterWilson
03-13-09, 11:05
I'm not. At the time of the shooting I bet that they didn't know what in the hell was going on and wanted all hands available. Besides, it could have been a terrorist attack or civil disruption.
Disturbing to say the least...if the Governor had called up the National guard I'd be a bit more comfortable with it.
This is likely part of a mutual aid memorandum of understanding that the local municipal government had with the Army… Most if not all municipal governments have them with the armed forces, if a base is close to, or contained within their jurisdictions… If there was a huge fire and your local Air Force base with all of its fire fighting equipment just stood by and defended the base while the entire town around the base burned down, that would not sit well with the tax payers…
Or as in this case, if local law enforcement is completely overwhelmed by an extraordinary event and people are actively dying or great danger of being killed, and the local agency is powerless to prevent it, then the local municipal government can activate their mutual aid pact, if they have one. They are requesting assistance from the armed forces that are part of their local community…
During the LA riots in 1992, The California Army National Guard responded to the City of LAs request; However, the City of Long Beach, which had Long Beach Naval Air Station within its borders, activated its mutual aid pact with the Navy, and in a few hours a Marine Corps Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion from Camp Pendleton was patrolling the streets of Long beach in LAVs along with the Long Beach Police Department…
These things are not sinister or part of a great conspiracy, just a part of reality… The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I for one would be quite upset if Nero fiddled while Rome burned…
B
This is likely part of a mutual aid memorandum of understanding that the local municipal government had with the Army… Most if not all municipal governments have them with the armed forces, if a base is close to, or contained within their jurisdictions… If there was a huge fire and your local Air Force base with all of its fire fighting equipment just stood by and defended the base while the entire town around the base burned down, that would not sit well with the tax payers…
Or as in this case, if local law enforcement is completely overwhelmed by an extraordinary event and people are actively dying or great danger of being killed, and the local agency is powerless to prevent it, then the local municipal government can activate their mutual aid pact, if they have one. They are requesting assistance from the armed forces that are part of their local community…
During the LA riots in 1992, The California Army National Guard responded to the City of LAs request; However, the City of Long Beach, which had Long Beach Naval Air Station within its borders, activated its mutual aid pact with the Navy, and in a few hours a Marine Corps Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion from Camp Pendleton was patrolling the streets of Long beach in LAVs along with the Long Beach Police Department…
These things are not sinister or part of a great conspiracy, just a part of reality… The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I for one would be quite upset if Nero fiddled while Rome burned…
B
I think you need to do a little research on Posse Comitatus and the reasons for it. Like Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." I think that the fact that the Armed Forces were called out in response to a lone gunman is pretty sad.
MisterWilson
03-13-09, 12:29
I think you need to do a little research on Posse Comitatus and the reasons for it. Like Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." I think that the fact that the Armed Forces were called out in response to a lone gunman is pretty sad.
I think that you need to do some research before going all self righteous & quoting Franklin on someone who has a MUCH better grasp of the situation than yourself.
With all due respect, if the military HADN'T been called out there would have been much more wailing & gnashing of teeth. For all they knew, this was either a terrorist attack or some sort of emergency worth calling the military out for.
Also, I think you're missing why that unit was garrisoned there to begin with.
I think that the fact that the Armed Forces were called out in response to a lone gunman is pretty sad.
It is truly a sad commentary on the local law enforcements capabilities to handle an active shooter; but once the situation has degenerated into chaos and people are dying, are you saying that you would prefer an additional ten innocent people be murder in the streets, than allow the local municipal government, that recognizes that it is unable to deal with the situation, to request emergency aid…
During the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, would it of been better if the armed forces did not deploy their air assets to rescue people from their roof tops and just let them drown???
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." Thomas Jefferson
B
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-09, 12:49
Everybody quiet down or else Barry will go full speed with his "Civilian Defense Force".
If Posse Comitatus doesn't stop calling out the Army for a lone gunman, what does it stop? I guess the Army won't hand out traffic tickets?
I read the wikipedia article on it, I'm no lawyer, but they sure make it sound like it is dead in all but name.
That's an interesting website for sure. I wonder whether or not to believe the stuff they say. Stuff like this:
http://www.infowars.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists/
It reminds me of the whole thing about China exercising eminent domain hoax that was broadcasted by some radio show host in New York.
It sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.
It is truly a sad commentary on the local law enforcements capabilities to handle an active shooter; but once the situation has degenerated into chaos and people are dying, are you saying that you would prefer an additional ten innocent people be murder in the streets, than allow the local municipal government, that recognizes that it is unable to deal with the situation, to request emergency aid…
During the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, would it of been better if the armed forces did not deploy their air assets to rescue people from their roof tops and just let them drown???
I read your point Buck but, this struck me as not being a good comparison -- one being a law enforcement scenario, the other being humanitarian assistance.
I'm curious to know what it was with that scenario that rose to the level of making the decision to "call out the troops". More specifically, why were they still deployed after the shooting stopped?
Oh, and as far as the British media's comments: **** them!
That's an interesting website for sure. I wonder whether or not to believe the stuff they say. Stuff like this:
http://www.infowars.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists/
It reminds me of the whole thing about China exercising eminent domain hoax that was broadcasted by some radio show host in New York.
It sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.
After reading every page of that police training bulletin, I have to simply ask, just who is it that is really the paranoid ones? And does not such a position actually play right in to the views of the very groups they are speaking of? Pretty pathetic lack of professionalism on the part of those who put that all together. Just my 2cents.
Is it disturbing? Yes. But Bush repealed the Posse Comitatus act shortly before his second term while we were all not paying attention.
That's what we get for handing over our nation to government out of fear.
The PCA has been expanded and diluted to an extent that makes it virtually unrecognizeable. There are a laundry list of missions troops will carry out in CONUS. More impressive than what you can see, is what you can't.
The expansion predates Bush, too, but he's the one that got it on paper.
Concerns about use of the armed forces like this aren't wholly without merit, but the tinfoil hat crowd drowns out what signal there is with the usual rhetoric.
Heavy Metal
03-13-09, 15:13
Is it disturbing? Yes. But Bush repealed the Posse Comitatus act shortly before his second term while we were all not paying attention.
That's what we get for handing over our nation to government out of fear.
Are you smoking crack??
Presidents do not get to overturn Acts of Congress AKA LAWS.
You can veto them to try and stop passage but only Congress can repeal a law.
Did anyone else notice that GutShot John's avatar is one of the flags that identify an "enemy of the police and government" in that Missouri bulletin? Guess we should all keep an eye out for the "enemy within":D Joking John, really.:cool:
Are you smoking crack??
Presidents do not get to overturn Acts of Congress AKA LAWS.
You can veto them to try and stop passage but only Congress can repeal a law.
No I was waking up, your right to a degree but here you go:
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." Frank Morales "Bush Moves Towards Martial Law
I can offer more sources if desired. Not trying to start a fight, but it is the topic of the discussion.
Gutshot John
03-13-09, 16:42
No I was waking up, your right to a degree but here you go:
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." Frank Morales "Bush Moves Towards Martial Law
I can offer more sources if desired. Not trying to start a fight, but it is the topic of the discussion.
Uhm...so Congress changed the law? Isn't that exactly what HM was saying?
How is that "correct to a degree" it sounds like correct in totality.
I wouldn't pay much attention to Patrick Leahy, he's pretty much goony-bird.
Yea he's correct. As for who to pay attention to, I don't care anymore they are all corrupt in my mind, whether they are on the left or the right.
My statement about "to a degree" is one of opinion not fact, i will admit. It is based off of the fact that for eight years congress was spineless (still are), and Bush basically did as he pleased with no oversight. Not saying it's changed much now, just saying don't be surprised by things like what happened in Alabama. Until Americans have the guts to fire all of congress, we will continue to see crap like this happen.
Gutshot John
03-13-09, 17:14
It is based off of the fact that for eight years congress was spineless (still are), and Bush basically did as he pleased with no oversight.
Bush had only 4 years of a Republican controlled Congress (house/senate). The First two had democratic control of the senate and last two years of his administration were a democratically controlled house AND senate. Throughout that time Democrats went out of their way to claim they were providing "oversight". This includes hyperbolic nonsense by Patrick Leahy.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
Per election cycle only 1/3 of the senate is up for election every 2 years. There is no way to fire every incumbent in the Senate and no practical way to fire every incumbent in the house.
You blamed Bush claiming he repealed the law, clearly Congress repealed the law. Bush just signed it. You may disagree with that signature, but blaming Bush for it (and I'm no fan of Bush) is a bit flawed. Saying there was "no oversight" is a stretch. Bush didn't make this decision, the Congress did.
It cold have just as easily been the State NG. The force that was deployed was better trained, available < 24 hours, ect...... Makes no difference to me. It seems all this was put into the works prior to the election just in case. You never know, with all the 'promises' made, it might have to be used.
This sounds like the real deal:
This is likely part of a mutual aid memorandum of understanding that the local municipal government had with the Army… Most if not all municipal governments have them with the armed forces, if a base is close to, or contained within their jurisdictions… If there was a huge fire and your local Air Force base with all of its fire fighting equipment just stood by and defended the base while the entire town around the base burned down, that would not sit well with the tax payers…
Or as in this case, if local law enforcement is completely overwhelmed by an extraordinary event and people are actively dying or great danger of being killed, and the local agency is powerless to prevent it, then the local municipal government can activate their mutual aid pact, if they have one. They are requesting assistance from the armed forces that are part of their local community…
During the LA riots in 1992, The California Army National Guard responded to the City of LAs request; However, the City of Long Beach, which had Long Beach Naval Air Station within its borders, activated its mutual aid pact with the Navy, and in a few hours a Marine Corps Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion from Camp Pendleton was patrolling the streets of Long beach in LAVs along with the Long Beach Police Department…
These things are not sinister or part of a great conspiracy, just a part of reality… The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I for one would be quite upset if Nero fiddled while Rome burned…
B
And here's a little more antidote for aluminum foil poisoning:
I find it very difficult to believe that the National Command Authority issued a direct order to deploy a few MP's to a little town in Alabama. In better times , less tense times , the deployment would have been a non-story. If a natural disaster had been involved , the situation would have been a non-story.
Given that many normal , sane people are concerned about possible abuse of federal power , this deployment was a serious mistake , IMO. This deployment , or any Federal deployment to a site that involves a hot button gun related issue , will be relentlessly exploited by extremists and their sympathizers.
The Iowa National Guard exercise that was cancelled had a similar problem , and the very lazy & stupid choice of an " arms dealer " bad guy added fuel to the fire.
A battalion commander and a company commander were replaced just before the Iowa exercise cancellation was announced . IMO, the replacement actions were good calls.
I would not be surprised to learn that some careers wither away at Ft Rucker .
Commanders get paid to be aware of the possible social and political back-blast from their orders.
Tin foil wizards are part of the terrain right now.
Unless you've been down there and lived in that area, it's hard to really understand the relationship that Ft Rucker has with the locals. It's not like other posts that I've been stationed at. Rucker is very much intertwined with the community both in an economic and day-to-day living type of way. If you can picture the old west, with small settlements and one Army Fort that everyone pretty much looks to as the only arm of government that has major capability, that's a close example.
The region is nothing but peanut farms and cotton. Not much goes on, and not much is there. That includes law enforcement. Most of those small towns have no department of their own. Of those that do, most of those have one or two guys (I'm not kidding) that are full-time and a handfull of part-timers. Many departments have only part-timers, including the chief. In area without departments, the Sheriff has probably a density of one or two covering dozens of miles, and the State troopers have even less. Alabama isn't exactly a highly metropolized area. It's not unusual to see a deputy backed up by a trooper, and even one or two cops from another town nearby on a call simply because there is no other law enforcement presence. All of the local communities have agreements with each other and Ft Rucker for assistance.
Under MAST (Military Assistance to Saftey and Traffic) Rucker provides all of the medevac aircraft for the area free of charge. They sit on 24 hour scramble and are airborne in minutes on the way to dustoff anyone that needs it in the area. Not just military on post, but traffic accidents on the highway, babies on the way, whatever. Most localities use a "lifeflight" type of company, or some such, but it simply doesn't exist in that region. So the military does it. Saving the lives of US civillians, day and night. Vast majority of the calls they get are civillian. They aren't NG. They are 100% active dustoff.
EOD is handled by Ft Rucker as well. If a bomb was found by a local cop, there's no way help from Montgomery will get there before the day is out to be honest. Rucker's EOD will be there and take care of the device as fast as any metropolitan PD's bomb squad could.
Fire department back-up, SAR, really anything you can think of that takes any kind of equipment, technology, special training, etc. is generally handled by Ft Rucker because no one else in the area has the capability.
I know they have agreements with the Provost Marshal on using MP's for emergency back-up. I don't know if that also includes deputizing the MPs prior or at the time, or if at all. Given the crime and the crime scene, arrival of the MP's would be pretty welcome in the area. You're looking at a day to get any NG guys in there, and probably as far as additional civillian LE, they were probably all already there. There just isn't much depth. Calling on the MP's for help was a logical move. It was the "firstest with the mostest" kind of deal. I have no doubt that it helped the local population feel safer. Yeah, I know "Feel safe" is somehow a bad thing and the route of all anarchy, but when you go from having no clue what's going on and people being shot all around you to being safe and sound, knowing evil will have to get through the US Army to get to you, it makes a difference.
I'm not debating the legal aspects. I'm just saying that I've lived there and given the way it is there, it's not out of bounds for that area.
citizensoldier16
03-13-09, 18:20
All details about the locality aside, per the US Code Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375:
"The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. "
Basically that says that the military can assist local law enforcement, but they may not search, seize, arrest, or otherwise perform duties restricted to sworn civilian law enforcement officers.
Basically that says that the military can assist local law enforcement, but they may not search, seize, arrest, or otherwise perform duties restricted to sworn civilian law enforcement officers.
No sir, it doesn't. Words matter here. In the summary of the citation you provide, the addition of "restricted to sworn civilian law enforcement officers" appears to be your addition.
As you note, the cite says as follows. The highlighted portion, emphasis mine, is critical:
"The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. "
Those authorizations are not neatly packaged in one place. They also provide rather expansive authority.
Counter-drug and counter-terror provisions, national security areas, jurisdiction of person, jurisdiction of offense, concurrent jurisdictions, mutual aid agreements, and cross-credentialing should all be well understood prior to stepping too boldly into the debate. Few do.
All details about the locality aside, per the US Code Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375:
"The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. "
Basically that says that the military can assist local law enforcement, but they may not search, seize, arrest, or otherwise perform duties restricted to sworn civilian law enforcement officers.
"unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law" being key.
As long as it's authorized by the law, it's perfectly legal. Posse Commitatus isn't an outright ban or prohibition. It simply prevents the illegal misuse of military forces for LE duties, not the authorized legal use of them.
I don't know the details of the mutuall assistance agreements, but I'd be willing to bet they're legal enough for the situation.
We also don't know if the MPs were deputized by the local Chief. I know MP's have been deputized by civillian LE before, usually US Marshall's office, or a Fed agency, but there's nothing stopping a small-town chief from doing it as well.
Regardless, the MPs have no less authority than any civillian in that town. If the people cooperate, there is no reason for "search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity". The MP's have the advantage of training, equipment, and structure that makes them better suited than a "rent-a-cop" who has similar authority in that state (i.e. the same as any civillian).
You can avoid any potential legal pitfalls anyway by simply having a LEO available to do the "search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity" stuff. The MPs simply provide security for the LEO to do his mission.
PCA doesn't prevent any of this. In fact you can set up full road-blocks with tanks, machine-gun nests, and barbed wire with forty troops and as long as one LEO is there to do the "search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity" Posse Commitatus doesn't apply one bit. The military is simply providing security for the LEO to do his mission.
Not saying it's right or wrong in the spirit of things, but people wave the PCA like it's a complete ban, and it's far from that.
This might help people to make some sense of things:
www.noreynoldswrap.net.
Just say no.
;)
MisterWilson
03-13-09, 20:59
Thank you Ross for your quality input.
citizensoldier16
03-13-09, 21:07
No sir, it doesn't. Words matter here. In the summary of the citation you provide, the addition of "restricted to sworn civilian law enforcement officers" appears to be your addition.
Unfortunately for your argument, this is not my addition.
http://vlex.com/vid/restriction-direct-participation-personnel-19222045 (http://vlex.com/vid/restriction-direct-participation-personnel-19222045)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000375----000-.html
http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/posse.html
"Otherwise authorized by law" implicates that the individual is, in addition to a serviceman/woman in the US Armed Forces, also separately, a sworn law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of such, not as a soldier/sailor/airman. "Authorized by law" indicates a direct addressment of the separation between services to the US Armed Forces and a civilian police force, assuming one may be a member of both organizations. As you stated, "words matter here", and those words clearly state that one may not perform duties of both responsibilities at once...those responsibilities being serviceman/woman and civilian police officer. One who is "authorized by law" to arrest, search, etc. would fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian police officer sworn to such duty and acting as such. There is clearly a delineation between civil servant and serviceman/woman and the privileges of each. Since the wording matters, and it is clear that there is a division between the duties, the indication that those duties may not coincide obviously exists.
USC Title 10 Section 382 clearly states that the military may not be utilized in a law enforcement capacity unless there is a threat of a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction. If such a device is deemed to be present, military personnel may be used to arrest, search, etc. ONLY for the "immediate protection of human life, and civilian law enforcement officials are not capable of taking the action. "
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000382----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000382----000-.html)
I do not believe that a single gunman posed such a widespread biological or chemical threat that civilian law enforcement officials were incapable of taking action against.
disclaimer: I dont have or know what a tin foil hat is. even though my avatar and handle would suggest i have a tinfoil hat in the shape of a funnel.
I read through this thread and one thing that kept coming to mind was, what if a citizen with a license to conceal or someone with a rifle was in his yard and perhaps knew of the criminal or his location and only had intent to stop this rampage. Lets then say a squad rolled through with no idea of the situation. This citizen probably would have been tackled or shot, the military would only be reacting as though martial law was declared. This makes me wonder about future events or even anti gun ban rallies and the carnage that could follow. Events take place regularly that are illegal and carried out by law enforcement. Illegal search and seizures, illegal detention, the list goes on. I personally dont blame officers, I have friends in law enforcement. Instead I blame their boss's, the ones that say "you want to have a job tommorow?" And consider how many soldiers in vietnam were told to follow their order or be shot on the spot for treason. The level of evil and the inaction of good amazes me. I recently read some definitions; capitalism, government, socialism, communism, marxism. History repeats itself, and we strive to be better as a mamal/race but no matter what kind of tin foil hattery remarks are tossed at the paranoids/realists, we are heading for dark times and no one can stop us. There is change coming, and the majority wants it.
Unfortunately for your argument, this is not my addition.
http://vlex.com/vid/restriction-direct-participation-personnel-19222045 (http://vlex.com/vid/restriction-direct-participation-personnel-19222045)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000375----000-.html
http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/posse.html
"Otherwise authorized by law" implicates that the individual is, in addition to a serviceman/woman in the US Armed Forces, also separately, a sworn law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of such, not as a soldier/sailor/airman. "Authorized by law" indicates a direct addressment of the separation between services to the US Armed Forces and a civilian police force, assuming one may be a member of both organizations. As you stated, "words matter here", and those words clearly state that one may not perform duties of both responsibilities at once...those responsibilities being serviceman/woman and civilian police officer. One who is "authorized by law" to arrest, search, etc. would fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian police officer sworn to such duty and acting as such. There is clearly a delineation between civil servant and serviceman/woman and the privileges of each. Since the wording matters, and it is clear that there is a division between the duties, the indication that those duties may not coincide obviously exists.
USC Title 10 Section 382 clearly states that the military may not be utilized in a law enforcement capacity unless there is a threat of a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction. If such a device is deemed to be present, military personnel may be used to arrest, search, etc. ONLY for the "immediate protection of human life, and civilian law enforcement officials are not capable of taking the action. "
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000382----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000382----000-.html)
I do not believe that a single gunman posed such a widespread biological or chemical threat that civilian law enforcement officials were incapable of taking action against.
I agree, and don't think so either. They appeared to be operating under another umbrella however.
Whatever umbrella notwithstanding, the citation(s) above provide the that they may search/seize/arrest/etc as authorized by law, and according to rules prescribed by SECDEF. Those rules exist, and operations that include search, seizure, and arrest are a norm, not an exception, and with authority conferred negating that separate and distinct identity.
It is truly a sad commentary on the local law enforcements capabilities to handle an active shooter; but once the situation has degenerated into chaos and people are dying, are you saying that you would prefer an additional ten innocent people be murder in the streets, than allow the local municipal government, that recognizes that it is unable to deal with the situation, to request emergency aid…
During the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, would it of been better if the armed forces did not deploy their air assets to rescue people from their roof tops and just let them drown???
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." Thomas Jefferson
B
Would I rather seen 10 civilians die than see the military patrolling our streets? YES!!!
If you are willing to give up your rights and everyone else's for a pragmatic solution to a temporary problem then you will not have any rights for very long. That is exactly the point of my"self righteous" Franklin quote. If assault rifles or handguns were banned and rounded up, would there be less high school massacres? Yes. Some of us just don't think that that is a good enough reason to give up such an important right.
I guess the congress of the 1870's must have been a bunch of "tin foil hat" wearers.
John_Wayne777
03-15-09, 12:20
Would I rather seen 10 civilians die than see the military patrolling our streets? YES!!!
That's absolutely absurd.
There's nothing nefarious about the military responding to a crisis situation when ASKED TO DO SO by local governments who do not have the resources to handle the problem themselves.
They didn't wander the streets shooting people or otherwise stomping on their rights.
Once that you have decided that it is OK to call out soldiers against civilians, where do you draw the line. Soldiers answer to a chain of command with significant and necessary insulation from civilian authorities. The mission of a soldier is to kill people and break things with little if any regard for the rights of an enemy. A police officer is answerable to civilian authorities, which in the best of circumstances is a local authority, easily answerable to the will of the people. They must act as if a citizen is innocent until proven guilty and do and should have a much higher standard in the use of deadly force. A soldier should not be asked to act under the constraints that a policeman would. A policeman should not be freed of constraints in the manner that a soldier would. The lines between the two have certainly been blurred over the last several decades but I would say that this has been to the detriment of both.
He can't be serious.
This is a bit much.
As a LEO, I am saddenned to see my colleagues even beleiving any of this hogwash. This is liberal propaganda designed to erase our values that our Founding Fathers founded this country on. I fear that they would roll over in their graves if they only knew what this great country had become. I love my country, but I do fear my government. This happenned recently to one of our sherrifs deputies: He was in Macon Ga, and was buying some .223 ammo, some Hornady TAP ammo to be exact. An ATF agent was in the store, and walked up to him, and demanded his badge, his ID, and then told he was being detained. It took an hour for the ATF agent to make sure he was legit, because he was buying 3000 rounds of ammo. Funny thing is, he was buying it for 10 guys, and they all went in on it together. This is why I am scared of the Federal Government.
Outlander Systems
03-15-09, 15:17
If factual, the above post illustrates the downward spiral of these sorts of affairs.
Interesting...very interesting.
So is buying bulk ammo grounds to be put on the "no-fly" list?
As a LEO, I am saddenned to see my colleagues even beleiving any of this hogwash. This is liberal propaganda designed to erase our values that our Founding Fathers founded this country on. I fear that they would roll over in their graves if they only knew what this great country had become. I love my country, but I do fear my government. This happenned recently to one of our sherrifs deputies: He was in Macon Ga, and was buying some .223 ammo, some Hornady TAP ammo to be exact. An ATF agent was in the store, and walked up to him, and demanded his badge, his ID, and then told he was being detained. It took an hour for the ATF agent to make sure he was legit, because he was buying 3000 rounds of ammo. Funny thing is, he was buying it for 10 guys, and they all went in on it together. This is why I am scared of the Federal Government.
Wow, that is a disturbing story indeed.
I got a call from my credit card company TODAY asking about a pattern of "suspicious purchases" from Sportsman's Guide. Ammo, gun safe, cleaning kit, Colt Mags etc. Nothing too wild and bought from a major company. Maybe they were just being helpful and monitoring my account for fraud. Maybe not...........
I got a call from my credit card company TODAY asking about a pattern of "suspicious purchases" from Sportsman's Guide. Ammo, gun safe, cleaning kit, Colt Mags etc. Nothing too wild and bought from a major company. Maybe they were just being helpful and monitoring my account for fraud. Maybe not...........
Ouch. :(
That may be even more disturbing. Don't like that one at all.
Are you smoking crack??
Presidents do not get to overturn Acts of Congress AKA LAWS.
You can veto them to try and stop passage but only Congress can repeal a law.
True, but they can claim "this doesn't apply" and just ignore it. Who do you call?
That's the technique used by the Feds now ... just claim that "such and such" does not apply to whatever they are trying to do, and move on. Then they hand out some free digital TV converter boxes to the masses, everyone forgets about it, and it's a done deal.
Seriously, the military is not supposed to be performing a law enforcement function here in the states. Period.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-09, 09:38
I got a call from my credit card company TODAY asking about a pattern of "suspicious purchases" from Sportsman's Guide. Ammo, gun safe, cleaning kit, Colt Mags etc. Nothing too wild and bought from a major company. Maybe they were just being helpful and monitoring my account for fraud. Maybe not...........
Good thing your wife didn't answer ;)
If it really were gun related, I would think we would get more posts about this. My CC company calls me for the oddest stuff sometimes.
As to the bulk ammo purchase and ATF guy, so if the guy hadn't been a cop what would have happened??? As to the cop, I guess your best bet is to make fun of the ATF agent for his ninja-like detective skills. Just out of curiosity, if it had been the LEOs jurisdiction, after proving his identity, could he tell the ATF guy to cram it? The ATF guy wants to hold the LEO for questioning, and the LEO wants to detain the ATF for 'disturbing the peace' (seems like a catch all)?
My fellow officer was 70 miles away from our county, in the big city.
Gutshot John
03-16-09, 10:01
Seriously, the military is not supposed to be performing a law enforcement function here in the states. Period.
If that were the case, it would have been enshrined in the BoR. Nothing in the Constitution says that the military may not enforce the law especially at the request of the states, but even when they don't.
Moreover there is ample precedent for the military enforcing the law when the states refuse. See the Little Rock Six. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne and federalized the National Guard to assure that black students would be allowed to register per Federal Law.
Posse Comitatus is a statute, not a Constitutional requirement.
Nathan_Bell
03-16-09, 10:17
I got a call from my credit card company TODAY asking about a pattern of "suspicious purchases" from Sportsman's Guide. Ammo, gun safe, cleaning kit, Colt Mags etc. Nothing too wild and bought from a major company. Maybe they were just being helpful and monitoring my account for fraud. Maybe not...........
Yup have encountered this one. I use a card for most business. I will run $5-$15 through it per month; buying from distributors and mfgs.
Card co. locked card and declared it as potentially stolen when I did $2k w/SF and $3k w/ LMT in same week. I called them and pitched a bitch, reminding them that these type of purchases happen all the damned time on my card, so the were not "out of the ordinary" as the drone kept trying to tell me they were.
Pretty certain it was the LMT that triggered it as the drone asked me about that transaction twice, where as all others only once.
If that were the case, it would have been enshrined in the BoR. Nothing in the Constitution says that the military may not enforce the law especially at the request of the states, but even when they don't.
Moreover there is ample precedent for the military enforcing the law when the states refuse. See the Little Rock Six. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne and federalized the National Guard to assure that black students would be allowed to register per Federal Law.
Posse Comitatus is a statute, not a Constitutional requirement.
OK, but:
1) States and localities shouldn't be requesting it casually - I thought that was what the National Guard was for?
2) If one mad gunman is the standard for calling in the troops, then I think we have other issues.
Gutshot John
03-16-09, 10:57
OK, but:
1) States and localities shouldn't be requesting it casually - I thought that was what the National Guard was for?
2) If one mad gunman is the standard for calling in the troops, then I think we have other issues.
1. The problem with the national guard is that it has to be called up. Meaning those guys have lives/jobs outside of their service, so they can't expeditiously get called up, grab their gear and respond to a crisis as the local active military unit could.
2. It's not just a question of one "mad" gunman, it's a question of an incident that overwhelmed a small-town public safety resources to respond. In EMS parlance it is what we would call an MCI (Mass Casualty Incident). When an MCI occurs, whether it be 10 victims or 10 thousand, all bets are off and the local communities get the help they need.
variablebinary
03-16-09, 11:45
If the Govt wants to dispatch troops to do God knows what to regular citizens, they are going to do it, and there isnt anything anyone can do about it.
And it always starts out sounding reasonable and in the people's interest.
At some point though it turns into boots on necks and Kent state.
Gutshot John
03-16-09, 11:55
At some point though it turns into boots on necks and Kent state.
Kent State was the national guard sent in by the Governor of Ohio, not federal troops.
And here's a little more antidote for aluminum foil poisoning:
I find it very difficult to believe that the National Command Authority issued a direct order to deploy a few MP's to a little town in Alabama. In better times , less tense times , the deployment would have been a non-story. If a natural disaster had been involved , the situation would have been a non-story.
This deployment , or any Federal deployment to a site that involves a hot button gun related issue , will be relentlessly exploited by extremists and their sympathizers.
Tin foil wizards are part of the terrain right now.
guy's one thing i didnt hear about in this whole thread is... swat teams and/or the feds? fbi hrt,local p.d swat??? why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to convert our police into pseudo-military units and then when the situation finally arrives to put all that money/training to good use arrives,the civvie law enforcement is glaringly absent and the regular army is called out?for one gunman? this makes sense and is acceptable to some of you?no wonder our country is screwed.no wonder they plunder our national treasure for trillions leaving our children and grandchildren in debt....because there are citizens of this great nation who strangely enough feel its ok to get shafted by the government as long as they tell us its all for our own good before we get screwed.
Gutshot John
03-16-09, 13:33
guy's one thing i didnt hear about in this whole thread is... swat teams and/or the feds? fbi hrt,local p.d swat??? why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to convert our police into pseudo-military units and then when the situation finally arrives to put all that money/training to good use arrives,the civvie law enforcement is glaringly absent and the regular army is called out?for one gunman? this makes sense and is acceptable to some of you?no wonder our country is screwed.no wonder they plunder our national treasure for trillions leaving our children and grandchildren in debt....because there are citizens of this great nation who strangely enough feel its ok to get shafted by the government as long as they tell us its all for our own good before we get screwed.
How many small towns in BFE Alabama do you know of that have SWAT/HRT? So your point is....?
Please read the entire thread before commenting in ignorance and/or casting aspersions on others in this community who have contributed far more than you have.
http://www.infowars.com/us-army-puts-soldiers-on-the-street-in-alabama-in-response-to-shootings/
The U.S. Army dispatched soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, a small southern town where a rampaging gunman killed 10 people on Tuesday. This obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the federal uniformed services from exercising state and local law enforcement was completely ignored by the corporate media with the exception of Reuters and the London Telegraph....
Yes, I'm absolutely bothered by it. It's clearly a violation of Possee Comittatus and sets an absolutely HORRID precedent...
Well, one thing we can all agree on is that we can trust our President and the Democrats/leftists to never, ever use the power of the Federal Government on us. So I don't see what everyone is so worked up about.
That's the 'forget the 90's version.'
Well, one thing we can all agree on is that we can trust our President and the Democrats/leftists to never, ever use the power of the Federal Government on us.
Right. And the check is in the mail. And I promise I won't........well you know.
Well as far as the question as to does it bother anyone..............Yes it does, I live in Alabama and why the army was here has everyone wondering. The perp was dead there was no more threat, just a lot of confussed people.
well I live here in Alabama and nothing on local news or anything else that the Military was called out. it was sheriffs, Local PD and a few of the SWAT guys from the Local depts(which are NG). the closest Base would be in dothan at Fort Rucker .to far.again NOTHING has been on the local news here .Just a few Screw ups where they called the SKS and AK-47 then they said it was a Bushmaster AR-15 and SKS.
Gutshot John
03-16-09, 23:25
:rolleyes:
Just a reminder to all... Play nice...
B
1. The problem with the national guard is that it has to be called up. Meaning those guys have lives/jobs outside of their service, so they can't expeditiously get called up, grab their gear and respond to a crisis as the local active military unit could.
2. It's not just a question of one "mad" gunman, it's a question of an incident that overwhelmed a small-town public safety resources to respond. In EMS parlance it is what we would call an MCI (Mass Casualty Incident). When an MCI occurs, whether it be 10 victims or 10 thousand, all bets are off and the local communities get the help they need.
love the comment of local asset's/"public safety resources" being "overwhelmed" by one a-hole with a rifle.roflmao.a little over dramatic?
as for my contribution? well i started my service to this country with a four year enlistment in the united states marine corps as an 0351.the rest is none of your business but i will say that i come from a whole family of local and fed leo's plus alotta friends in "alphabet" agencies who are shocked and disgusted due to the flagrant violation of law.
no problem buck.i see your from l.a. a dear friend of mine builds rifles for l.a sheriff's s.e.b.
love the comment of local asset's/"public safety resources" being "overwhelmed" by one a-hole with a rifle.roflmao.a little over dramatic?
By all accounts they were overwhelmed... Thus the activation of their mutual aid agreement with the Army...
B
variablebinary
03-17-09, 01:10
Kent State was the national guard sent in by the Governor of Ohio, not federal troops.
Imitate, not replicate
Well I started this thread in hopes of learning a little more about how folks here view the role of the Feds and I’ve found it interesting to say the least if not a bit discouraging. Even in a freedom loving community such as this, I see a toleration on the part of some for what I find to be a dangerous extension of Federal power and a violation of states rights. I’ll also grant that such intrusions are at times at the bequest of state governments but that is a failure on the part of state and not justification for Federal involvement in spite of the fact that the specific action may appear to morally vindicated. It is not just individuals who wait in line to suck on the teat of centralized power.
Incrementalism is dangerous because it is almost invisible. Freedom stealers don’t jump over jurisdictional lines, they just take a small steps and test the mood. Resistance normally results in retreat but never a full retreat. They take a half step backward and move the line. Here a little and there a little—they are painstakingly patient. They also have a different attitude than most of us. They’re aggressive and offensive while most of us are defensive. We want to hold onto what we have and are happy to be left alone to work, raise our families and enjoy our friends. Not the other side. What we have they want to take away—but they are happy to do it slowly. It is the slow warming of the water that cooks the frog as it is never aware of the danger. He is already caught but doesn’t know it. They fight their war by stealth and their greatest asset is our apathy and ignorance. Idealogical wars are exactly that—wars. And they are won with knowledge, determination, perseverance and the will to defeat the enemy. It’s hard work on top of the everyday work of making a living. I hope we’re up to it. We haven’t done very well in the 200 plus years since the original constitution was penned. The march has been a steady one to the left.
I believe this thread has run its course...
B
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.