Posse Comitatus Act ignored?

[BexSoCal]

The Psychopath In Chief is gonna mobilize the Army on U.S. soil?

WTF!!!

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

This is illegal as per the Posse Comitatus Act.
Is another 9/11 style False Flag event planned so Dear Leader can seize control of the US as a Dictator?

Remember, he did create NSPD 51 last year to do exactly that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I fear the economy is the least of our problems.

[Monster8V]

oh relax!
You have more things to worry about.... like filling out change of address forms!!

[BexSoCal]

oh relax!
You have more things to worry about.... Like filling out change of address forms!!

ok.

[satakal]

oh relax!
You have more things to worry about.... like filling out change of address forms!!

props. Nothing more to say.

[BexSoCal]

I would love to hear the opinions of all our brave soldiers on the forum.

[Batrugger]

Kind of like Ceaser bringing the legion into Rome. We have a National Guard for what they have assigned this force to do.

[paultakeda]

The National Guard, the military force we expect to defend and support home soil, has been sent off to a foreign land. Meanwhile, a professional army unit is stationed on home soil in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Freaky. But at this point, having the tenets of our system of government consistently violated isn't exactly a new thing, is it.

[TOYr32]

You make it sound like this is being created to overthrow the government. Its a emergency response team . . . who cares.

It would be different if it was commanded by some random general. As soon as Bush is out, he no longer controls them . . . I don;t really see the big deal.

[JETTAone420]

so in other words their taking fully capable combat brigades and keeping them stateside to do what the ARNG is supposed to already do?

[TOYr32]

Exactly, but since the reserves and guard units are in rotations, the only available unit is an active brigade . . . but it's still the same military.

Now if they were hiring a reserve group of blackwater I might be worried . . . but from what I understood they already had blackwater in new orleans for the recent hurricane scare.

[TOYr32]

On a side note . . .

Bex, you and I don't need to worry about too much of the national Gov . . . NorCal is a different country in itself!!! We make our own rules up here.

[JETTAone420]

ok then so whats the big deal? i always thot reguardless of active duty or reserve we were all soldiers first? the more i think of it i actually think its a good idea....cuz god knows (and u combat active duty guys know) when in garrison its not like we do shit anyways.. now of course this depends on how the "training" schedule they would have set up goes...

[paultakeda]

National Guard units act under the authority of the governor of a state when performing the duties nominally given to the police. This is a federally controlled unit within a state but unanswerable to that state's government.

The arm of the federal government has grown long.

And soldiers are not soldiers first. They are citizens first.

[TOYr32]

And soldiers are not soldiers first. They are citizens first.

Actually . . . you don't have to be a citizen to be in the armed forces. :)

[paultakeda]

Actually . . . you don't have to be a citizen to be in the armed forces. :)

Yeah, I never liked that bit, either. It should be automatic that you are given citizenship upon enlistment, with a revoke penalty should you not fulfill your contract.

[Monster8V]

And soldiers are not soldiers first. They are citizens first.


I love people who have NEVER been in the military to tell us how it is in the military.

FYI, military personell have NO rights as a citizen. Had you been in and served, you would of heard what most of us heard on day one of boot camp.

Now you kids go get all worried about nothing now! Keep reading into all the hype and lets make it something it could never be. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[TOYr32]

Shawn are you online?

[JETTAone420]

haha thanks shawn... i was gonna say somthin to paul but god forbid id get written up for another "infraction" for speaking the truth lol...

and i still stand by what i said. we are soldiers first.

[Monster8V]

Shawn are you online?


Nope, im posting with my telepathy again.

[TOYr32]

not SCE dumbass

[paultakeda]

I love people who have NEVER been in the military to tell us how it is in the military.

FYI, military personell have NO rights as a citizen. Had you been in and served, you would of heard what most of us heard on day one of boot camp.

Now you kids go get all worried about nothing now! Keep reading into all the hype and lets make it something it could never be. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The principle of being a soldier in a democratic/republic society is to be a citizen first. Your rights as a citizen during enlistment may be curtailed due to your responsibilities as a soldier, but this does not mean you are no longer a citizen. You are ultimately defending a nation's people and its way of life; this means you are a citizen first. A soldier first is something else, altogether.

The other point is that recalling a National Guard unit to perform this task would not have violated the Posse Comitatus Act, and that the only reason I can think of for this is that the federal government wishes to keep state control out of the chain of command.

[DTolo]

Ok, so read the article... and the problem is where?

Active duty units have always and will always be needed and often the best qualified to handle certain positions or calls of duty. "Against all enemies foriegn and domestic.." Since when do you have to have a specific team or branch for "domestic"?

Further, when in the need for military presence for whatever reason, Riots or Protecting The Mail on the Railroads (yes, it's happened, read some history)... would it not be a good idea to have these combat veterans also versed in the difference between clearing a Falluja-an city block and restoring order in a downtown riot?

Anyhow... where was the problem again?

[Batrugger]

Remember too that this may be "no big deal", but it is a the sum of all the "no big deals" that add up eventually. Hitler did not take over Germany with an revolution or coup de tat. The Constitution has been whittled away little by little by this administration and this is just another shaving.

[DTolo]

...and that the only reason I can think of for this is that the federal government wishes to keep state control out of the chain of command.

You know a positive to the State not being in the Chain of command, is the State not being responsible to foot the bill. Can you imagine adding the cost of federal troops to California's 15 Billion dollar defecit?

Also, take Katrina (however controversial this may seem)... Had there been troops with a mission of dealing with situations such as Katrina, the Federal Gov't couldn't have been denied the ability to send them in, vs. waiting for the state to authorize Federal aide.

[paultakeda]

Ok, so read the article... and the problem is where?

Active duty units have always and will always be needed and often the best qualified to handle certain positions or calls of duty. "Against all enemies foriegn and domestic.." Since when do you have to have a specific team or branch for "domestic"?

The problem is that this is a task for the National Guard. Regs are there for a reason, right?


Further, when in the need for military presence for whatever reason, Riots or Protecting The Mail on the Railroads (yes, it's happened, read some history)... would it not be a good idea to have these combat veterans also versed in the difference between clearing a Falluja-an city block and restoring order in a downtown riot?

Anyhow... where was the problem again?

If you don't see the distinction then that in itself is a problem.

[paultakeda]

You know a positive to the State not being in the Chain of command, is the State not being responsible to foot the bill. Can you imagine adding the cost of federal troops to California's 15 Billion dollar defecit?

California's National Guard already exists.


Also, take Katrina (however controversial this may seem)... Had there been troops with a mission of dealing with situations such as Katrina, the Federal Gov't couldn't have been denied the ability to send them in, vs. waiting for the state to authorize Federal aide.

There would have been troops ready to mobilize and deal with Katrina... the problem is that they were already deployed overseas.

This just goes back to the government exploiting the National Guard instead of activating Selective Service, since exploiting the Guard was far less controversial and avoids dissent.

[DTolo]

California's National Guard already exists.




Yes, the Gaurd does exist, but paying the costs of operations is damned expensive.

It's not that there weren't troops ready to mobilize. There were plenty of troops on standby to go... I was one of them. The problem is that the Federal Gov't didn't have the clearance from the State to do so... It sounds like this new assignment for the Army would make it easier for the Federal Gov't to step in without State pre-approval.. that can or cannot be a good thing. That is where we need to make sound decisions in voting for our leaders, and let them make the decisions we entrusted them to (that too is a whole other story, ugh).

As far as the regs and the comitatus act.. I don't know the fine print, but I'd think that is likely one of the reasons that the Pres couldn't activate the local gaurd element in LA.

And distinguishing between a combat zone and a Local area of even Marshal Law... yes you can see the distinction.

But being trained for each is necessary. The training and mission is different, and it takes more than the person behind the rifle to "distinguish" where he is on a map.

[paultakeda]

Everything you state works for me, except that I just don't agree with having federal troops having the ability to commit actions within a state without state approval. Failure for Lousiana to act to save its own people points more to a fault with that state. Why should I want that failure to translate to superior powers to the federal government for ALL states?

That's just the true republican in me. :)

[DTolo]

Everything you state works for me, except that I just don't agree with having federal troops having the ability to commit actions within a state without state approval. Failure for Lousiana to act to save its own people points more to a fault with that state. Why should I want that failure to translate to superior powers to the federal government for ALL states?

That's just the true republican in me. :)


I agree with you... crappy part is, if you ask anyone who's at fault for Katrina, they point at the federal Gov't anyway (They should have stepped in) Not many understand Federalism or what "enumerated powers" are.

Also, (forgive me for forgetting names and such) but the PRess (ford or Johnson?) had to activate the Gaurd in in Alabama or one of the southern states in order to get the kids into school. You know what I am talking about< i just can't remember the names or date, and my 10 month old is screaming at me and I don't care to look it up at the moment.

[madajb]

This is illegal as per the Posse Comitatus Act.

No.
It isn't.

The key part of the Posse Comitatus Act is " except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,"

Over the years, legislation has been written to allow the military to act in ways that would make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. The justification for this was mostly the War on Drugs, think drug-interdiction flights and things of that nature.
Now that our new boogey-man is the War on Terrah, Congress has created a whole new series of exemptions for the military, most recently the Defense Authorization Bill for 2007.
In an unusual fit of usefulness, Congress repealed the 2007 exemptions in 2008, but our Dear Leader added another of his Signing Statements saying he'd ignore the parts he didn't like.

-ajb

[lordoftheblings]

I love people who have NEVER been in the military to tell us how it is in the military.

...And I love how people think you need to have been directly involved with something to have educated yourself on it. Get over yourself man. We all get it.

You know everything ever written, verbally passed down or otherwise. You can have no wrong opinion nor can your knowledge be disproven. You have a perfect body and are the worlds greatest lover, when you had a mullet it was more glorious than all others and lastly you are the worlds greatest internetter.

This isnt about life in the military, its about the government extending its liberties a little too far. Granted this is far from being anything, yet. But it always starts that way. I seem to remember a young idealistic Iraqi man with whom we sided a long time ago.

I dont have to have gone to culinary school to cook.

[Monster8V]

...And I love how people think you need to have been directly involved with something to have educated yourself on it. Get over yourself man. We all get it..



Apparently you dont get it or you wouldnt have gone off on some tirade that only you understand. Take a deep breath and relax. Your going to be OK. :D

I dont have to have gone to culinary school to cook.

Only if your going to preach about cooking.