View Full Version : Army Investigating why troops were 'deployed' in Alabama shooting spree.
variablebinary
03-18-09, 09:01
Good! This is even more bizarre since no one has a clue how the military got involved.
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206
The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.
“On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson,” Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.
“The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander’s inquiry––directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey.”
TRADOC is the headquarters command for Ft. Rucker.
“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also determine whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” Perritt added. “Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.”
Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”––and the department was glad for the help.
“We’ve been getting a lot of calls,” Stromenger said. “They weren’t here to police, let me make that clear. They were here to help with traffic and to control the crime scene––so people wouldn’t trample all over (it).”
Stromenger said the town needed help––calls had gone out to all police departments in the area.
“We’ve only have a five-man police department,” he told CNSNews.com. “We had officers from all surrounding areas helping out. There were a lot of streets to be blocked off and there had to be someone physically there to block them off. That’s what these MPs were doing. I don’t think they were even armed. The troops helped keep nosy people away.”
But Stromenger said it wasn’t the Samson Police Department that called for the troops.
“I don’t know who called Fort Rucker. But someone did. They wouldn’t have been able to come if someone hadn’t,” he added.
Under Whose Authority?
The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley –– or by the request of President Obama, as required law.
When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor’s office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley's spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.
No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House––or the Defense Department.
Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” the law states.
David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.
“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.
“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added.
In addition, there is the Insurrection Act of 1808, as amended in 2007, (Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code) under which the president can authorize troops “to restore order and enforce the laws of the United States” in an insurrection.
“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection,” the law states.
In 2007, Congress expanded the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as situations for which the president can authorize troops, provided that “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
Congress has been clear that the use of U.S. troops for civilian police purposes is forbidden.
“One of the statutes explicitly says that military brigs can’t even be used to detain domestic criminals,” Rittgers said. “It really is supposed to be a black and white line.”
The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, would have prosecuting authority, if any violation is deemed to have occurred. The Justice Department did not comment for this story.
Ft. Rucker, located in Southern Alabama, is the home of Army Aviation
Yeah, though well intentioned, I didnt think the deployment of soldiers was kosher.
Spurholder
03-18-09, 11:33
Interesting. Marty Dempsey is a good guy...I'll be watching this. Thanks for posting.
Army Investigating why troops were 'deployed' in Alabama shooting spree....The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.
They should take off the tinfoil hats.
Every sane person knows that you should assume any government action is legitimate and for the best.
At least thats what i hear from most whenever someone questions it...unless it involves taxes.
Maybe you should assume its legit until they tell you otherwise?
DMedicIraq
03-18-09, 16:05
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=27765
Already posted at length.
its funny here in alabama there was no word the army got deployed
RogerinTPA
03-18-09, 18:11
Glenn Beck covered this today. Army says "No comment" but is looking into the allegation. The state governor is looking into it but has no knowledge. Basically, know one knows WTF happened.
The Army will have little to say ( rightly so , IMO) until the Commander's Inquiry is completed.
They will not do a trial-by-media goating-roping. As the dust finally settles there is likely to be some good , solid objective coverage in the Army Times and some other responsible media sources. The AT is fairly good at sorting out the spin & BS.
IMO , FWIW , some people's career future will hang on factors like exact timelines , SOP's, who knew what and when did they know it , leader/trooper briefings , and local traditions that have developed over the years.
There will be plenty of people at Ft Rucker and in the rural county/town who know exactly what happened.
And TRADOC ain't Recruiting Command ( or whatever they call that wonderfull organization these days).
;)
I can not even imagine the resources needed to secure and process ten or eleven homicide crime scenes all at the same time, and if that is not enough, add searching for an active shooter into the mix… I will venture to say that very very few agencies would be able to pull it off…
Here is the DOJ crime scene manual in PDF for some lite reading... LINK (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/200160.pdf)
I can not even imagine the resources needed to secure and process ten or eleven homicide crime scenes all at the same time, and if that is not enough, add searching for an active shooter into the mix… I will venture to say that very very few agencies would be able to pull it off…
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question is why the military personnel were involved and what exactly their involvement was (i.e., what authority and mission were they given, based upon what legal authority, etc.).
Lets say hypothetically that they were told to go "secure a crime scene" until civilian LE could come process it. What does that mean? Could they arrest (seize) or use force to prevent a property owner from entering his own property if it happened to be a crime scene? By what authority?
People aren't questioning this particular situation because no cluster****s resulted. In the future, however, cluster****s may ensue if there isn't clear authority and clear mission and rules.
I have no opinion (yet) on what happened or whether it was appropriate, but I'm glad they are doing an assessment to figure out all the hows and whys here.
I will admit that I tend to favor the military people ( leaders and troopers ) who make fast choices based on the incomplete information that they have at any point in time. What happened needs to examined using " the reasonable & prudent human being , knowing what they knew at the time , given their training , experience , etc". It may turn out that the people who gave the orders did everything right , for very good reasons. For example , put boots on the ground , fast , into an ongoing mass murder situation and get them back out of there as soon as the local LE organizations believed that they (local LE) had a good handle on the situation.
I also believe that the Commander's Inquiry will be done with skill and integrity.
The most positive thing that could come from the whole situation (IMO) is some valuable lessons learned about emergency local community support in a context that can go national and very complex very quickly. The Fort Rucker local community support incident is one of three military situations that have been relentlessly exploited by panic-mongering tin foil types. All three situations also drew the concerned interest of lots of normal , sane people , too.
The other two were the Iowa National Guard small town exercise with an "arms dealer" as the bad guy leader , and , most recently , the DoD brass multilation policy. It seems that the brass policy problem was solved very quickly , much faster than I ever expected , anyway.
Those who don't know History are doomed to repeat it's failures.
Those who don't know History are doomed to repeat it's failures.
+1 Many here need to look up Posse Comitatus(sp?)
Robb Jensen
03-21-09, 06:45
+1 Many here need to look up Posse Comitatus(sp?)
Exactly.
What ever military officer gave the order to send the Army should resign or be tried by court martial.
The Sheriff asked for help and he should have asked the governor, he too should resign.
Exactly.
What ever military officer gave the order to send the Army should resign or be tried by court martial.
The Sheriff asked for help and he should have asked the governor, he too should resign.
YUP!!!!
variablebinary
03-21-09, 15:26
Exactly.
What ever military officer gave the order to send the Army should resign or be tried by court martial.
The Sheriff asked for help and he should have asked the governor, he too should resign.
Damn right
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
The process and rules weren't followed. Someone might get in a little trouble for that, because those rules are there for a very important reason.
That said, I don't think anyone can rationally point to this whole thing and claim any sort of nefarious motives on anyone's part. The LEO's are trying to do their job, and they asked the Army for help. Wanting to help is a normal reaction. I'd trust the generic American soldier(s) above just about anyone else.
Submariner
03-21-09, 18:46
That said, I don't think anyone can rationally point to this whole thing and claim any sort of nefarious motives on anyone's part. The LEO's are trying to do their job, and they asked the Army for help. Wanting to help is a normal reaction. I'd trust the generic American soldier(s) above just about anyone else.
Shouldn't they have asked the State Police for help instead?
Shouldn't they have asked the State Police for help instead?
I would imagine that in a situation like that, every state asset was probably brought to bear on the issue. My guess is the Army was closer and someone, not knowledgeable about the rules governing such things, reached out to the military and someone on that side, equally ignorant of the rules, responded with good intentions. I love all the condemnations of the military officers involved without the facts being fully determined. And these are the men who have chosen to suit up and go into harms way for their country.
Nathan_Bell
03-22-09, 09:55
I would imagine that in a situation like that, every state asset was probably brought to bear on the issue. My guess is the Army was closer and someone, not knowledgeable about the rules governing such things, reached out to the military and someone on that side, equally ignorant of the rules, responded with good intentions. I love all the condemnations of the military officers involved without the facts being fully determined. And these are the men who have chosen to suit up and go into harms way for their country.
Condemnation of the person's motives? Nope, I would imagine that the folks who did this were honestly doing what they felt was the best for the local community that supports Rucker.
That said; rule of law is crucial and the legal approach for this to have happened does not appear to have been followed.
QuietShootr
03-22-09, 09:58
I would imagine that in a situation like that, every state asset was probably brought to bear on the issue. My guess is the Army was closer and someone, not knowledgeable about the rules governing such things, reached out to the military and someone on that side, equally ignorant of the rules, responded with good intentions. I love all the condemnations of the military officers involved without the facts being fully determined. And these are the men who have chosen to suit up and go into harms way for their country.
That legal line is there for a reason. The officer who approved this deployment(and any others who didn't STOP it) needs SEVERE punishment, pour encourager les autres.
Robb Jensen
03-22-09, 11:02
The road to hell is paved with good intentions......
:confused:
There must be at least a couple or three other people on the thread who have done some Commander' Inquiries , or at least a Report of Survey .
YKWIM , some kind of military " formal hard official look at something". YKWIM -- a look at something that might put someone in very deep trouble. Or not , it depends on the facts and the rules.
A lot of talk about posse comitatitus when we still don't know exactly what these deployed troops were doing? We should probably keep in mind Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution while we wait to see what these soldiers were actually deployed to do and what they did.
-B
It looks like Gina Cavallaro from the Army Times has some more details on the Ft Rucker situation. The cover headline is: "Rucker Command on hot seat , 4-star investigates why MPs were sent to aid sheriff". The article headline on page 10 states: "Army reviews soldiers' aid in wake of Ala. shooting , Law restricts military from helping civilian authorities".
The article is around a half page , counting the small pic' & caption.
QuietShootr
03-23-09, 16:17
I just returned from Northern Ireland the day before yesterday.
I love the Army, BUT we do NOT want the Army on the streets of the US for ANY reason, okay? Trust me on this.
"...good , solid objective coverage in the Army Times ..."
You gotta be kidding me.
When the dust settles it'll probably come out that nobody sent these guys -- they're Soldiers and cops who probably haven't read the nuances of Posse Comitatus.
Someone's shooting up the town and the sheriff asks for help. We train our Soldiers to ride to the sound of the guns.
Was it wrong? Sure. You gonna cut their nuts off? Somebody's gonna get a letter of counseling at the minimum, maybe a reprimand. Jail time? I doubt it.
We have Posse Comitatus for a reason. The military underwrites honest mistakes -- we don't tolerate deliberate violation of the law.
When I get around to it , I'll try to post a link. Right now , I can't get on the AT site , so I'm working from a paper copy.
People who have read the article don't seem to think it's all that bad.
YMMV.
:)
Submariner
03-24-09, 19:14
I just returned from Northern Ireland the day before yesterday.
I love the Army, BUT we do NOT want the Army on the streets of the US for ANY reason, okay? Trust me on this.
I do but most here might not.
Please elaborate.
it seems that we are being constantly "tested" on how much we "the people" will put up with. this and the miac report are only a couple things.
If they we unarmed and only used for traffic control, and had no arrest powers, then I am more comfortable with it. Would that still be against the law?
Anyone can direct traffic ... sometimes you just need some people to do it.
QuietShootr
03-25-09, 18:12
I do but most here might not.
Please elaborate.
Love to, but I don't want to get banned again.
Love to, but I don't want to get banned again.
While MP's might be a bit of an exception, soldiers are not LEO's - I'm not exactly sure what people would expect a bunch of, say, 11B's to do when someone refuses a verbal order. It's not particularly fair to the soldiers or the civilians. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.
I love the Army, BUT we do NOT want the Army on the streets of the US for ANY reason, okay? Trust me on this.
I can think of a variety of reasons why I want the US armed forces on US streets. Katrina. 9/11. Domestic terrorism. Internal threats to the republican government of each state, as well as the rest of Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Invasion by a foreign military.
-B
I can think of a variety of reasons why I want the US armed forces on US streets. Katrina. 9/11. Domestic terrorism. Internal threats to the republican government of each state, as well as the rest of Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Invasion by a foreign military.
-B
I still disagree with you vehemently. Once the nose of the camel is in the tent you WILL deal with the rest of him whether you then choose to "disagree" or not. It's called incrementalism; boiling the frog, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The States' National Guard were put in place for exactly what you describe. They were to answer to the Governors of the States they belonged to.
I still disagree with you vehemently. Once the nose of the camel is in the tent you WILL deal with the rest of him whether you then choose to "disagree" or not. It's called incrementalism; boiling the frog, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The States' National Guard were put in place for exactly what you describe. They were to answer to the Governors of the States they belonged to.
+1 And not all threats to the governors need the military. Maybe if the government stayed within their powers and didnt violate the constitution repeatedly thered be no threat?
Just remember what the 2A is REALLY for and that we the people retain the right to revolution if needed and that the .mil swor to uphold the Constitution not protect its destroyers
Sounds like thats what he has issue with IMO, but Im no fan of Lincoln style tactics thats all about retaining power
+1 And not all threats to the governors need the military. Maybe if the government stayed within their powers and didnt violate the constitution repeatedly thered be no threat?
Just remember what the 2A is REALLY for and that we the people retain the right to revolution if needed and that the .mil swor to uphold the Constitution not protect its destroyers
Sounds like thats what he has issue with IMO, but Im no fan of Lincoln style tactics thats all about retaining power
I never thought I'd find hardened States' Rights folk in Southeastern Michigan 15 years ago and now that I'm leaving I miss the Hades out of Michigan. There exists legislation to re-establish Soveriegnty in Michigan (and at least 8 other states) via the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Though I've never met you, I miss you, Bro!
I still disagree with you vehemently. Once the nose of the camel is in the tent you WILL deal with the rest of him whether you then choose to "disagree" or not. It's called incrementalism; boiling the frog, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The States' National Guard were put in place for exactly what you describe. They were to answer to the Governors of the States they belonged to.
You can disagree with me all you want, but that doesn't change the legality and properness of their actions. Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution is pretty clear. It is the function of the United States, including their agents (the military in this case), to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, to protect each state from invasion, and upon application of the legislature or the executive if the legislature cannot be convened to protect against domestic violence. Additionally, the United States Code illustrates exactly these functions in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 15 ("ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html)"). Subsections 332 and 333 are the most relevant.
If you have specific grievances, you should probably list them. Knee-jerk reactions are frighteningly common, considering the lack of information we have on the subject.
-B
bottom line is that these soldiers should not have been involved even in traffic diversion. the state patrol or other local pd's should have backed up the local dept. period. the army fights our wars overseas. if a true in house emergency erupts that needs more boots on the ground then it goes to the states national guard and initiated by the states governor or the u.s.a. president. you can quote article 4 all you want. the regular army would and should be the absolute last option to respond to ANYTHING domestic.
Yup, nevermind the Constitution (unless it's the parts of it we like). :rolleyes:
-B
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.