It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Bush Suspends Posse Comitatus, Active Military Pour into New Orleans

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by magnito_student
Anyone that steps up to the line and defends this administration at this point says one thing about their psyche: "They will never wake up from the lie no matter what and will follow this runaway locomotive called the New World Order off the cliif into the abyss"

Please Neo...wake us up...we seem to need your enlightenment to wake to what you call the real world.

Do you have a blue pill?....or is it the red one?....

Yeah, I think we can see whose "psyche" is out of the loop here...

Both of you, if this is the extent of your contribution here, please feel free to NOT hit the Post Reply button.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:35 PM
Americans hate armed regular troops on every street corner and I suspect in areas where this happens the citizens will feel the need to bulk-up on arms for years after the fact.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Of course, they never existed, and the crazies are strangely quiet about the fact that if there actually were such things, they’d be used now, but given the depths of human silliness, within a week or so, they will start to come up with a theory about why these non-existent facilities were deliberately withheld.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

I believe these complexes do exist, maybe not all those that can be found in conspiracies.

A large privately owned engineering company has 60% of it's work provided by the construction of them.

And the reason they were not used?

Well, if you read the conspiracies you will already know.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:09 PM
There are several points that only a few people here probably grasp. Allow me to bring a few of them up.

1. You have to read the article for yourself if you want to understand what's going on.

Active-duty soldiers would not be involved in law enforcement, Inge said, but would provide a variety of security and humanitarian assistance.

So, does this contradict what Bush said? No, it does not. Bush said that they would restore order, not that they would make arrests, searches or seizures. The Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM said that they would provide security. If we read these statements in the context of what is legally allowable and do not make unwarranted inferences on the specific meaning of generalized phrases, it is clear that the military will be acting in accordance with the laws listed in my second point to enable the police to do their job, not that there will be anything amounting to martial law.

2. Not all use of the military within the United States constitutes a violation of the Posse Commitatus Act.

There is a misconception floating around that Congress must OK the use of troops within the United States. What the Posse Commitatus Act actually says is this:

except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

In other words, if a law or the constitution permits it, the president, acting as commander in chief can use the military within our borders.

Posse Commitatus obviously does not prevent the military from being used to keep government facilities off limits, or protecting government assetts, etc. They do that all the time. Acts of Congress establishing our armed forces enumerate their duties, which include in some cases the securing of bases and other government facilities, as well as other duties as might be appointed to them by the Commander in Chief.

Furthmore, as Off The Street pointed out, and I have as well in past discussions, 10 USC 371-78 does allow the military to assist law enforcement operations.
10 USC 371-81

375 Says that enlisted personel can not directly participate in arrest, search, or siezure. 374 However makes it clear that the military may operate equipment in support of civilian law enforcement for any purpose not otherwise forbidden by law, may establish bases of operation for civilian law enforcement, and may provide transportation (logistical support) for civilian law enforcement.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (often mistakenly referred to as The War Powers Act) enumerates the circumstances under which the president can send our troops into action. The first two, which I have ommitted for brevity, are declaration of war, and other authorizing statutes.
War Powers Resolution, Section 2C3

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities,...
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

That law does not stipulate foreign attack. Where citizens take up arms against local governments, it can be argued that this constitutes an attack. There is precedent for this. The National Guard actively supported law enforcement agencies by fire during the Rodney King Uprising in 1992 without any Supreme Court rulings, Articles of Impeachment, or other noteworthy question as to legality arising.
Wikipedia on 1992 LA Riots, second day

3. The deployment of US troops to a disaster in no way threatens the rise of martial law on a national level, much less a facsist power grab by Bush. For the last four years it's been "just wait and see, any minute now der fuhrer will make his move..." well time is ticking away. Bush is a lame duck, he's coming up on a midterm election that could put an already uncooperative senate into opposition hands, and we're virtually no closer to a police state than we were the day after the Patriot Act passed. Granted the federal government has steadily continued its century old trend of encroaching on local powers and moving the United States closer to unitary government, but as much of this has come at the hands of liberal chief justices (with Scalia's help I concede) as has come from Bush. Nor have the Congress and Senate been innocent by any standard.
This is not a recent problem. Bush is not the problem. Bush is the latest and most widely publicized symptom of our federal system's deteriorating health. I advise those who are terrified of Bush to examine the problem more closely and start gnawing on the hind quarters of their representitives, senators, and state legislators to push for a correction back towards our tradition of a comparatively weak central government and stronger state governments. I feel that when you panic every time the the federal government steps up to the plate to do exactly what it was meant for (assist the states with something that's simply too big for them), especially in the case of a massive catastrophe and subsequent breach of peace, which certainly should be opposed in every way, just because it came from a president you don't trust, you are really missing the boat.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:38 PM
People welcome troops in the streets because they bring comfort and security.

One of the arm forces branch that he doesn't have to ask the congress for aproval is the Marines so I imagine they will make the majority of the troops.

I think is a very smart move.

If somebody cover the Marines VS any other branch already I appologized for bringing again this littler fact.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:43 PM

You have voted Sugarlump for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Really good post.

I'm not to sure if sending the military in is such a good idea myself, I'm actually rather apathetic about this whole thing.
I can picture many different scenarios in my head, both good and bad.
I suppose all we can really do, is hope that it does'nt turn into a blood-fest because of this.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:45 PM
Partial to the Jar heads ,huh, Marg?

Well I was an Airborne Ranger stationed w/ the 82nd airborne(4yrs) and they've been called up as well, "All The Way, Sir"

[edit on 9/3/2005 by bodebliss]

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by bodebliss
Partial to the Jar heads ,huh, Marg?

Well I was an Airborne Ranger stationed w/ the 82nd airborne(4yrs) and they've been called up as well, "All The Way, Sir"

He,he, hey I am married to one and still going, my husband is a retired Jar head of 22 years of military services.

I have learned to respect and apreciate them very well in my years as a military wife.

Onces a soldier always a soldier.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:28 PM
Since the title of this article remains miraculously unchanged, I think I'll point back up to my post near the top of this page. The Posse Commitatus Act has not been suspended, nor has it been violated. I've gone to some length to demonstrate that.

Anybody awake? Somebody even tossed out the idea that our nation was on the brink of martial law, so I assume somebody would like to discuss my assertions to the contrary.

By the by though, I mentioned the larger problem of the strengthening of federal power over the states in my post above. I've got a PTS thread on it now- a tad long, but fairly well researched, and I would like to think compelling.

Fear and Partisanship: Stealing your Liberty to make you vote

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Since the title of this article remains miraculously unchanged,

I didn't invent this myself, I got it from MSNBC live television...if it is incorrect I think it should be changed but I can no longer do it.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:38 PM
Would any of this be necessary if the National Guard was here like they were supposed to be instead of out in Iraq fighting for oil? When they say National Guard maybe we need to ask which nation they guard.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:45 PM
I assumed as much djohnsto77. I chose not to alert it because I feel that I know you well enough to know that you were not trolling or baiting. I figured somebody might come along and edit it as we got into the discussion and established that indeed nothing had been suspended.

I'm really more anxious to hear from those who are sure that we are with holding aid so that the "concentration camps" which don't exist will remain secret, especially those who implied by the use of words like fuhrer that this heralds a declaration of martial law.

I beg you to take no personal offense

Edit to add: Indy, please do not change the subject. The community, lead by the staff, are in the middle of an effort to tone down the partisan rhetoric, and one of the crucial rules we identified in the discussion that policy is that making inflamatory statements tangent to the subject of a thread is a no-no. I'm not alerting your post, I'm just asking you to help keep ATSNN on topic and at least marginally civil.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by The Vagabond]

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 09:15 PM
You may disagree with my post but it is right on topic. And it has to do with the need to send in military because of the lack of National Guard members. And the reason there is a lack is because our president has sent them overseas to fight this nonsense war. If the Louisiana National Guard was at home where they should be it would not be necessary to send in the military. That isn't partisan. That isn't rhetoric. That is just simple fact. Alert if you wish. That won't change the reality of what I said and how it applies to the need to send in troops.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Indy
You may disagree with my post but it is right on topic. And it has to do with the need to send in military because of the lack of National Guard members. And the reason there is a lack is because our president has sent them overseas to fight this nonsense war.

This thread is not about the justification of the war in Iraq and will not be derailed to that topic. Key inflamatory statements such as "war for oil" and "nonsense war" pushed your post over the edge from an observation to a tangent and an attempt to start a political pissing contest.
I strongly recommend that you find a thread better suited to that topic, or get more into the swing of THIS topic.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:41 PM
I think its interesting that at the top of this page it encourages you to post your opinion, twist or take on the news item. I'm sorry my opinion on this doesn't agree with you. Your opinion of the war might be something else. I'm not the one starting a pissing contest. We are in a war that has left our own people vulnerable. It has taken away national guards members that are supposed to protect the people of Louisiana. It has taken these people and moved them abroad inappropriately. This has left a huge hole that now needs to be filled by other troops.

The title of this thread is "NEWS: Bush Suspends Posse Comitatus, Active Military Pour into New Orleans"

Active military pour into New Orleans because the National Guard is extremely thin. And why is it extremely thin? Because they are in Iraq. Feel free to insert your own reason why they are in Iraq. I stated my OPINION as the message at the top of the page encourages. There was nothing like "right wing this" or "liberal that".

My OPINION is that an inappropriate war has taken away people whose job it is to protect the state of Louisiana. Correct me if I am wrong. It was the president that ordered the national guard to be mobilized and sent to Iraq just like it was the president that mobilized troops to go into New Orleans.

You all are free to say how the troops are sent in to enforce the law. I'm saying if things had been handled appropriately they shouldn't have been needed and that the Guard would have been there to do their job.

Additional note to show how this is relevant..

"Thousands of National Guardsmen have failed to regain control of New Orleans. Fires continue to belch smoke over the city and sporadic gunfire echoes through the flooded streets."


"There are currently 4,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard and no fewer than 12,000 guardsmen from neighbouring Mississippi serving in Iraq."


The result is...

"Bush Suspends Posse Comitatus, Active Military Pour into New Orleans"

[edit on 9/3/2005 by Indy]

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:14 PM
Just Cause For Legitimate Concern

Originally posted by Indy
Active military pour into New Orleans because the National Guard is extremely thin. And why is it extremely thin? Because they are in Iraq. Feel free to insert your own reason why they are in Iraq. I stated my OPINION as the message at the top of the page encourages. There was nothing like "right wing this" or "liberal that".

I doubt anyone here would mistake me for a partisan Bush-basher, and while I support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in particular (and no, not because of a snipe hunt), I find it disturbing that the National Guard, which was created specifically to defend the U.S. homeland, is so heavily deployed in Iraq -- doing the work that we're supposed to hire full-time active-duty soldiers for -- that the president sees fit to mobilize active duty troops here at home.

Iraq is not a national emergency, it is a strategic engagement that we initiated. Meanwhile, at a time of genuine national emergency, we seem to be coming up short-handed, and Americans are dying because of it.

If that sounds demagogic, I recommend bearing in mind that we are witnesses to this very thing happening. Something is wrong with this picture. Very wrong.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with Americans questioning the decisions of our government, and everything wrong with giving them a free pass on something as significant as suspending posse comitatus.

Something stinks, and it's not just the bodies of U.S. citizens left to the maggots in New Orleans.

[edit on 9/3/2005 by Majic]

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:20 PM
Maybe this will be a good learning experience for this president and those that follow. Keep the guard at home. Today it was Katrina and 1 to 2 million people. Next time it could be the New Madrid fault and 50 million people. Who honestly knew until this past week how bad things could really get here at home. I certainly never expected this kind of mess. Yes I expected that NO would get flooded if the storm hit direct. I never expected the civil unrest.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:30 PM
LOL...Bush just cant win... If he doesnt send troops to help he hates balck people, if he does, he is doing illigal things and should be impeached... go figure !

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:46 PM

Taipei Times:

The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.

As New Orleans descended into anarchy, US President George W. Bush and his emergency-response team congratulated each other on Friday for jobs well done and spoke of water, food and troops pouring into the ravaged city. Television pictures told a different story.

"What it reminded me of the other day is `Baghdad Bob' saying there are no Americans at the airport," said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant in Washington.


Extremely long quote edited

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:22 AM
if bush really wants to help our country and make it a better place he should get some of our troops out of the middle east and send them new orelans and then pull the rest out faster than he wants to

<< 1    3 >>

log in