1

The Posse Comitatus act is under threat (if it is not already completely negated) by this administration. Consider that the military has been used as police (US Marines shot and killed a 14 year old with a .22 in Arizona(?) while on 'border' patrol in a drug interdiction - and they were cleared). I have no problems with National Guard or even reservists as they are under the control of their state governors.

To be honest, I am not comfortable with the norther Idaho survivalists, or the wacko militias but I will join them if I have to. I grew up in Montana (I keep repeating that like it means something) so I still have the guns I was born with. I am accumulating food and supplies and have route back home mapped out.

Unfortunately, I am 60 years and could not hike the 700 miles but I will die a free man.

6
Contributors
21
Replies
22
Views
9 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by GrimJack
Featured Replies
  • 1

    [QUOTE=zeroth;704867]we are free only because we shot enough people they couldn't control us...just ask the Georgians what it takes to be free...[/QUOTE]I have no idea what you are saying here, if you want to communicate, somtimes paragraphs and logical progression of ideas really help. Read More

1

we are free only because we shot enough people they couldn't control us...just ask the Georgians what it takes to be free...

0

you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The President is allowed to use military force when requested by state governors or when the state is unable or unwilling to to protect civil rights and property. I believe LBJ used that authority in the 1960s to assist school desegregation.

0

you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The President is allowed to use military force when requested by state governors or when the state is unable or unwilling to to protect civil rights and property. I believe LBJ used that authority in the 1960s to assist school desegregation.

Agreed - with the caveat that this "molehill" is the tip of the 2nd Amendment glacier that insures the people's choice.

0

That's not talking about freedom -- its referring to stopping terrorists, unless of course you think terrorists should be free to use WMD anytime and anyplace they wish.

1

we are free only because we shot enough people they couldn't control us...just ask the Georgians what it takes to be free...

I have no idea what you are saying here, if you want to communicate, somtimes paragraphs and logical progression of ideas really help.

Votes + Comments
Aww, that's just crazy talk! ;P
0

you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The President is allowed to use military force when requested by state governors or when the state is unable or unwilling to to protect civil rights and property. I believe LBJ used that authority in the 1960s to assist school desegregation.

Posse Comitatus refers specifically to using the military to enforce laws

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.

This law was passed in response to the use of Federal troops in the Southern states following the Civil War.

LBJ use of Federal troops was under the Insurrection Act which is

...[T]he set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

- the important exception in the Posse Comitatus Act is this line

"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 old west idea of forming a posse and chasing down the bad guys was based on the common law posse comitatus "referred to the authority wielded by the county sheriff to conscript any able-bodied male eighteen or older to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon; compare hue and cry <was a process by which bystanders were summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who had been witnessed in the act of committing a crime.>. It is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes."

The mountain I am talking about is that the armed forces are not trained in the concepts of law enforcement - this is not derogatory. The armed forces are trained to defend, attack, and contain; there is no real overlap nor should there be. If 2 police officers heard a bullet whiz by their heads, they would look for the source of and, if possible, talk to the person who fired at them, get them to disarm and take them into custody (ideally). If 2 Marines are fired on, they would track the person to his home and kill him. This is why we do not want the armed forces to perform the duties of law enforcement.

Does this make some sense?

0

That's not talking about freedom -- its referring to stopping terrorists, unless of course you think terrorists should be free to use WMD anytime and anyplace they wish.

This is the canard that is used to support the mass arrest of demonstrators in St. Paul before they had even had a chance to protest - they broke into private homes forced them all face down on the floor cuffed them and dragged them to jail. When a reporter present asked to see the warrant, she was arrested also and her film was confiscated. Everyone was released after the RNC went home. There were no WMDs found; there were no terrorists found. It is used to make everyone take their shoes off at the airport, but allow everyone free access to boats, trains, buses, etc.

To be honest, even bringing up terrorist and WMD in this context seems a little intellectually dishonest - like saying "if you allow <whatever of your choice> the terrorists win." If you want to draw a direct line from this discussion to allowing the terrorists to win, do so but please walk me through your map from one point to another.

0

The mountain I am talking about is that the armed forces are not trained in the concepts of law enforcement - this is not derogatory. The armed forces are trained to defend, attack, and contain; there is no real overlap nor should there be. If 2 police officers heard a bullet whiz by their heads, they would look for the source of and, if possible, talk to the person who fired at them, get them to disarm and take them into custody (ideally). If 2 Marines are fired on, they would track the person to his home and kill him. This is why we do not want the armed forces to perform the duties of law enforcement.

Point well made, but I have a couple of questions.

Weren't the ROE stricter than that even in the Iraqi theatre?

In the case where the Mexican Army is performing incursions into the United States, is that a military or law enforcement issue?

0

the armed forces are not trained in the concepts of law enforcement - this is not derogatory. The armed forces are trained to defend, attack, and contain; there is no real overlap nor should there be. If 2 police officers heard a bullet whiz by their heads, they would look for the source of and, if possible, talk to the person who fired at them, get them to disarm and take them into custody (ideally). If 2 Marines are fired on, they would track the person to his home and kill him. This is why we do not want the armed forces to perform the duties of law enforcement.

I think that, like it or not, the military is going to have to start training its members in law enforcement techniques. Warfare and expectations have changed dramatically in recent years and we're either going to have to start training the military in how to arrest people and how to secure a scene in such a way as to be able to collect evidence that can later be used at trial, or we're going to have to stop putting them in situations where they have to do such things. There are going to be more and more "Peacekeeping" types of missions, which require different skills from the traditional combat mission, so if we're training soldiers only in combat techniques and only with a combat mindset, then sending them on peacekeeping missions, we're not going to be happy.

The perfect example of what you are talking about occurred in the 1992 L.A. riots when the Marines went in to back up the police. Two police officers needed to go into a building where there were some people who they though might be armed and told the Marines "Cover us", expecting the Marines to aim their weapons toward the building and to be ready to fire if someone pointed a gun at them. Instead, the Marines interpreted "Cover us" as "provide cover fire" and started shooting at the building. Two completely different interpretations of the term "Cover us". The police then quickly explained what they meant and everything was fine and no one got hurt. But if we're going to send in the Marines to help quell riots, we'd better tell them exactly what we want them to do and we need the police and the Marines to train together ahead of time so everyone's on the same page when it happens again, and it WILL happen again.

0

The mountain I am talking about is that the armed forces are not trained in the concepts of law enforcement - this is not derogatory. The armed forces are trained to defend, attack, and contain; there is no real overlap nor should there be. If 2 police officers heard a bullet whiz by their heads, they would look for the source of and, if possible, talk to the person who fired at them, get them to disarm and take them into custody (ideally). If 2 Marines are fired on, they would track the person to his home and kill him. This is why we do not want the armed forces to perform the duties of law enforcement.

Does this make some sense?

I do agree that the armed forces are not trained to be policemen and should not normally be put into that capacity. But when put into that situation I doubt anyone would perform as you indicated (track down the shooter and kill him). Do you really think members of the armed forces are that stupid? When LBJ used them to quiet down the school desegregation riots, how many military tracked down the rioters to their homes and shot them? Answer: zero.

0

I do agree that the armed forces are not trained to be policemen and should not normally be put into that capacity. But when put into that situation I doubt anyone would perform as you indicated (track down the shooter and kill him). .

That is exactly what I thought until it happened in Arizona. The boy was 14 years old out with his .22 rifle - it is not known if he knew the Marines were even out there. The area is desert, the boy and his family were American citizens of Spanish descent. The Marines tracked the boy to his home, watched it for a while then shot the boy. They were tried and found innocent because they had 'justifiable belief that their life was in danger'. I feel it was outrageous that Marines were being used within the US as law enforcement (US Border Patrol is considered a law enforcement - "The United States Border Patrol is the mobile, uniformed law enforcement arm of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).") as part of border interdiction.

Anyone who has grown up in the West, in a sparsely populated area has gone out and shot gophers, squirrels, rocks, trees, etc. It is not supposed to be a capital offense to go 'plinking' with your .22. I use to go out gopher hunting with a .3030 (not real efficient) and a .22 while growing up in MT. Just 14 years ago in AZ I would drive outside of Tucson and shoot rocks with my .357. If Marines were out there in full camo, I can't guarantee that I would have spotted them (I would like to think I would have but I got an ego the size of my arrogance). I really doubt a 14 year old boy would have been able to see them if they did not want to be seen.

0

I think that, like it or not, the military is going to have to start training its members in law enforcement techniques. Warfare and expectations have changed dramatically in recent years and we're either going to have to start training the military in how to arrest people and how to secure a scene in such a way as to be able to collect evidence that can later be used at trial, or we're going to have to stop putting them in situations where they have to do such things. There are going to be more and more "Peacekeeping" types of missions, which require different skills from the traditional combat mission, so if we're training soldiers only in combat techniques and only with a combat mindset, then sending them on peacekeeping missions, we're not going to be happy.

The perfect example of what you are talking about occurred in the 1992 L.A. riots when the Marines went in to back up the police. Two police officers needed to go into a building where there were some people who they though might be armed and told the Marines "Cover us", expecting the Marines to aim their weapons toward the building and to be ready to fire if someone pointed a gun at them. Instead, the Marines interpreted "Cover us" as "provide cover fire" and started shooting at the building. Two completely different interpretations of the term "Cover us". The police then quickly explained what they meant and everything was fine and no one got hurt. But if we're going to send in the Marines to help quell riots, we'd better tell them exactly what we want them to do and we need the police and the Marines to train together ahead of time so everyone's on the same page when it happens again, and it WILL happen again.

The question is: will training our military forces to be policemen destroy them militarily? The habits of thought and behavior are too different. It may be possible to train a special forces team to be police but I do not believe that you can train them to be both and they would end up being neither.

0

Point well made, but I have a couple of questions.

Weren't the ROE stricter than that even in the Iraqi theatre?

In the case where the Mexican Army is performing incursions into the United States, is that a military or law enforcement issue?

Wrt: ROE - We didn't have no stinking ROE when I was in the Marine Corps - er, uh, unfortunately the scenario that I laid out is exactly what happened.

Border Patrol issue and they are, of course, law enforcement - they can call for support, if they need it.

0

The question is: will training our military forces to be policemen destroy them militarily? The habits of thought and behavior are too different. It may be possible to train a special forces team to be police but I do not believe that you can train them to be both and they would end up being neither.

I think they could probably be both, but probably not at the same time. I've heard the term "dull the edge" several times from soldiers, you need an aggressive, adrenaline-filled knife-edge mindset to function well in combat, whereas in law enforcement that's often a bad mindset to have, and it's very hard to pump yourself up for full scale combat, then an hour later, politely knock on someone's door and ask to search their house (as opposed to the full scale combat mode of just ramming the door down). Basically, their point was your point: it's very hard to operate in both worlds). So I think you could give them the the training and then kind of tell them what "mode" to be in, but it would take some adjustment time. You wouldn't want to take them from Fallujah (probably full combat mode) and stick them in peaceful Country X the next day, or vice versa.

I think cops have the same problem. If you have been patrolling in hard-core gang country for the last year and a half, when you abruptly transfer to mall security duty, you probably find yourself acting too aggressively at first. The human mind needs time to decompress from extremely volatile combat situations back to more normal ones, so you probably can't have them going back and forth all the time. I knew a cop who was on a stakeout after a really dangerous guy. They kept getting these false leads on the guy, they'd amp themselves up for the confrontation, then when it was a no-go, they'd have to immediately amp themselves back down, and he said it was just about impossible and everyone started hating him because he was aggressive all the time. Basically he wasn't able to handle the rollercoaster of having to switch from combat/danger mode to normal mode so often. It took a toll on him and no doubt, his "edge" got dulled after a while. I think very few people can flip that switch on and off successfully.

0

Wrt: ROE - We didn't have no stinking ROE when I was in the Marine Corps - er, uh, unfortunately the scenario that I laid out is exactly what happened.

Perhaps things are not the same as they once were.

Border Patrol issue and they are, of course, law enforcement - they can call for support, if they need it.

Foreign invasion is a law enforcement issue. Check.

0

Perhaps things are not the same as they once were.

you decide.

Foreign invasion is a law enforcement issue. Check.

Dave, where are you going with this? I don't understand what you are reaching for here so I will leave it alone.

0

you decide. Dave, where are you going with this? I don't understand what you are reaching for here so I will leave it alone.

More or less the "Clinton plan"... That even if the country gets nuked, we'll issue warrants. But enough softballs.

0

More or less the "Clinton plan"... That even if the country gets nuked, we'll issue warrants. But enough softballs.

Same old lame right wing/libertarian crap - blame it on Clinton.

You guys gotta get a life - or at least a new strategy.

0

Same old lame right wing/libertarian crap - blame it on Clinton.

You guys gotta get a life - or at least a new strategy.

I believe the Clinton crap is "Obama before steroids". YMMV

0

I believe the Clinton crap is "Obama before steroids". YMMV

You don't make much sense but at least you have a sense of humor about your losses.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.