Posted on 08/28/2012 5:22:01 PM PDT by Travis McGee
Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.
The statute only addresses the US Army and, since 1956, the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not restrict or apply to, the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor (in its federal capacity, the National Guard forms part of the Army or Air Force of the United States). The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive (self-regulation), but not by the Act itself. Although it is a military force, the U.S. Coast Guard, which now operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.>/i>
18 USC § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
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.
I have heard several variations on what Patton did to Phenix City, or Russell or Lee Counties. I doubt any of them are true.
I have heard it from people who should have known that when they were chased out of Phenix City, they went to McNairy, County, TN. These were the same people that Buford Pusser ran into. The first “Walking Tall” movie was supposedly pretty accurate.
Relevancy? In a Republic the law is supposed to be applied to all, equally; not subverted and twisted even when not selectively-applied.
So? Have you read what all the Constitution allows military use for? Suppressing insurrection and enforcing laws are mentioned. Further, Art 4 Sec 4, could allow for any military commander to start military maneuvers in AZ/TX/NM/CA today, the Constitution affirms that the States shall be protected from invasion and those states are being invaded -- that in itself does not qualify as posse cometaus, but what if they besieged sanctuary cities, cutting them off from water and power until they turn over the traitors instituting such policy?
http://alarmandmuster.proboards.com/
You could always join us. We’re just an alert system. Not a militia by any means. Just information and alarm...
Yuck...
I don’t know what you were trying to say, nor why you ignored my post.
The people vote, and an ever growing number of drug addled, dependent, welfare voters supporting the left, serves the democrats wonderfully.
The left says bring it on, more social workers, more welfare workers, more cops and government, and more lost souls to push the democrat button for free money.
Because the War on Drugs isn't about drugs; it's about control. The relevancy of "in a democracy, cheap legal dope and welfare" was unclear to me.
The people vote, and an ever growing number of drug addled, dependent, welfare voters supporting the left, serves the democrats wonderfully.
I see, that's almost another issue entirely. There is one thing that I believe is common to both: drugs are popular for two reasons [both escapism] -- #1) there is no justice, the evil prosper and are not restrained by law, while those striving to follow the law are are crushed by it; #2) a lack of real love in their life, I'm not talking physical or mere feelings, but a real you-matter God-reflecting love in their lives.
#2 is only addressable by the church, which in America is rather anemic (I know, I'm anemic in my walk with God); but #1, well nations are destroyed by God when they forsake justice like that... and who would want to live in such a world anyway?
The left says bring it on, more social workers, more welfare workers, more cops and government, and more lost souls to push the democrat button for free money.
And that makes it ok to push a system which is morally bankrupt? Which flies in the face of all previous American jurisprudance: assuming that all are guilty until proven innocent? (The ability to seize real property and monies before trial assumes guilt on the part of the accused which must gen be disproved.) A system that selectively enforces laws with vastly differing methods: the SWAT team for the "gangsta" in the hood, but a picture and naughty-gram [news-story] if they're a federal politician (Bill Clinton, Obama, etc)?
Good luck with all that.
Because apparently somebody on “the do not list” wrote it and the mods pulled it.
Dunno if it was the author or the original poster.
A thread about it started and was pulled in minutes.
Just thought it was good idea to bookmark the link in case in disappeared again.
You can technical-legalese your way around any law with patriot-act era gibberish. Sure, PCA formally stated Army, but the point was to exclude major active-duty military components from acting as occupiers in any part of America. That particular act came from hard lessons learned after the CW.
Don’t dance the legalese twist, the point is that we are watching the military, police and federal law enforcement morph into a seamless National State Security Force far beyond anything our Founding Fathers warned us against so often and passionately.
The Marines “integrating” with many national police departments in order to get ready for unspecified “Special Reactions” or whatever is very worrisome.
Hey, let’s give them a billion HP bullets and thousands of new and surplus armored trucks while we’re out it.
No problemo, nothing but blue skies ahead, eh?
Good luck with what?
Do you think it is a good thing, or a bad thing, to have Marines deployed inside the USA in opposition to citizens?
Seems to me the intent, not to split hairs, is to not deploy the national Defence forces against the citizenry.
Do you have a problem with that intent?
The question is, what is the right thing for the armed forces to do, including marines, when they are asked by the government of the US (for example, the socialist communist one we have today) to deploy in military action against the citizens.
Personally, I believe the military, be they army, Seals, Marines, coast Guard, whatever, ought not be deployed against law abiding citizens, and non law abiding residents should be dealt with by law enforcement officers.
So, are we on the same page, or not?
This has brought down older civilizations than ours. Rome comes to mind.
Well, when the SHTF that is exactly what “they” are going to do and claim. All these years of the liberal left playing legalese games and you are witnessing this taking form now....and you still want to cry PCA?
I think it much better to state the dance and learn the steps...before getting on the ballroom floor. They are already signaling PCA won't stand and won't protect us.
The point is that “legalese” does not matter with the executive branch rules by executive decree.
You can stand behind or in front of a piece of legal paper, and they will run right over you.
The point is to get back to explaining the REASON for the PCA, not last-week’s legalistic wrangling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I prefer the way it worked out in Finland in 1918.
Only took them around 4 months, and they've remained a free nation ever since, with about the third-highest per capita ownership of small arms- and oters- around 30 per hundred citizens.
“And yet this does beg the question: under what circumstances should civil police and military be working together WHERE WEAPON USE IS INVOLVED.
Many answers are not comfortable.”
So the military isn’t supposed to be trained on how to clear a room without blowing up an entire city block?
That’s part of the reason why they train with SWAT teams. And it’s not everyone in the military who does this training BTW. The Marines assigned to protect carriers and other “capital ships” go through this sort of training.
Force Recon Marines have the mission of VBSS (Visit Board Search and Seizure). Do they not need to be trained in SWAT style tactics?
But you and some of the others apparently like the idea of more of our troops coming home in body bags because they hav’t got a clue as to how to properly clear a room/structure.
“Sir, how should we clear the building?”
“We’ll throw squad after squad in there until either we’re all dead or the enemy is dead”
I didn't say that. But they sure can do it [the training] w/o the police.
That’s part of the reason why they train with SWAT teams. And it’s not everyone in the military who does this training BTW. The Marines assigned to protect carriers and other “capital ships” go through this sort of training.
Yeah.. I was 11B and on train-up to go to Iraq we covered this training... and guess what: there were no integrated police exercises. In fact the only overlap we had were the National Guard guys who were Police on their civilian-side job.
Force Recon Marines have the mission of VBSS (Visit Board Search and Seizure). Do they not need to be trained in SWAT style tactics?
See the above; but that also begs the question: do police need military-style tactics? (That is SWAT.)
But you and some of the others apparently like the idea of more of our troops coming home in body bags because they hav’t got a clue as to how to properly clear a room/structure.
What are you talking about? Just because I wish a very thick and distinct line between civilian operations and military operations (and hence find police/military armed-exercise integration disturbing) does not mean that I wish my fellow veterans to die.
“Sir, how should we clear the building?”
“We’ll throw squad after squad in there until either we’re all dead or the enemy is dead”
Ah, I see you've served under Captain Zapp Branagan.
In a heartbeat. I don’t care WHO’S son that soldier is.
The minute the government declares war on us, their minions are all the enemy and fair game.
Brothers fought each other 1861-1865, what makes this any different.
Of course any soldier who refuses such an order and joins the civilian resistance is OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.