California Check Points with Military Happening

page: 5
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pd417
This has got to be the most paranoid thread I've ever read here.

I work for a large California L.E. agency adjacent to one of the larger military bases in California. The MP's from this base have constantly sought out our advice on various investigative issues including the proper way to conduct a DUI checkpoint. They have worked closely with our department and at no time have they or will they taken independent law enforcement action off base.

The laws for DUI enforcement subtly change every couple of years and even military police need to stay abreast of the current changes. What better way than to observe the CHP, who does more DUI arrests than any agency in California.

There's no conspiricy here, but me telling you that isn't going to change your mind. The MP's arn't going to suddenly appear on the streets and start arresting people. They are police, just like the rest of us learning a better way to do their job.


Really? so all these years that the military has never had to "train" with the police for DUI checkpoints, now they do?

Let me ask you another thing - what is so special and people need to be trained about asking for a drivers license, insurance and have you been drinking tonight? OH, and then doing a breathalizer.

Give me a break, this is in direct violation of our constitution!

I think they are trying to get people in that area, used to seeing military at checkpoints. I would not be surprised if military are at other checkpoints around the states to "learn how to stop DUI's".

That excuse has got to be the weakest lamest excuse I have ever heard, and a big fat lie. Let's say it is true, just for one second, they couldn't have a policeman come and do a training session with them on the base where they belong?




posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Super Bowl security efforts included personnel and resources from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. military’s Northern Command, which coordinated with Arizona officials. The Northern Command was created after 9/11 to have troops and Defense Department resources ready to respond to security problems, terrorism and natural disasters.

Northern Command spokesman Michael Kucharek and Arizona Army National Guard Major. Paul Aguirre said they are not aware of any new planning for domestic situations related to the economy.

Nick Dranias, director of constitutional government at the libertarian Goldwater Institute, said a declaration of marital law would be an extraordinary event and give military control over civilian authorities and institutions. Dranias said the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the U.S. military’s role in domestic law enforcement. But he points to a 1994 U.S. Defense Department Directive (DODD 3025) he says allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage.


the above is from this article Dec. 17th:

phoenix.bizjournals.com...

Above says they already are planning to have the military at the Super Bowl - from how I read it. Also he is saying it is allowed due to a directive allowing military commanders to take action.

So right there - will be their excuse for taking control and our protection in the constitution of our military being used against us being wiped out.


A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.

The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.


Funny, they are even stating runs on banks will require military policing in the states. Are they warning us in advance - of what is coming down the line?

Also they will use the military for protest against businesses and government?

Now in doing that - that then takes our "free speech" rights away!

I thought we were allowed to protest and demonstrate on the streets in the U.S. - is this saying if we begin doing that - we will have military action taken against us?

I am just reading the article - it seems to say if we don't like our situation - and want to protest against it, we will see the military controlling the situations and not the police.

Does everyone else read this article the same as I do?





[edit on 20-12-2008 by questioningall]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by emeraldzeus
reply to post by questioningall
 

Marines are constantly driving this road. It is a VERY DEADLY ROAD!!!

So, the General and base officials have been meeting with city officials of Yucca Valley, to team up with a plan to crack down on drunk and reckless driving.

I have never seen a more whiny, lazy, uninformed group of individuals as I have seen living here.

When the military arrests a civilian and hauls them off, THEN we'll have problems!!!


I'm trying hard to figure out if you have actually said anything in amazingly large batch of words.

You seem to be saying that IF you can manage to ignore laws you don't like, you should. But only for the greater good and only if you are a big-shot government authority. Is that what you are saying?

Now you may be saying that the general is putting on civilian clothes and on his own and acting as a father on his own outside of his work hours. Fine, then that story really has nothing to do with military checkpoints and does not even have anything to do with the military at all!

Or you may be saying the general is trying to enforce local US laws or set up local political systems on duty. What a gross violation that would be. He needs to go to prison for a while if that is what he is doing. I'd say a year in prison would be appropriate if that is what he is doing.

I do believe that the US military is under the highest ranks is very non-evil and more patriotic than most.

And finally I think it is pitiful how when government people gain power they ignore the opinions of those "under" them as if they were under them and not actually serving them! It is a real attitude problem. And I point this out because I find it hard to believe it just so happens that the guy who is working with the government the most is a high-ranking person. I say boot out the titled guy and put you, when off duty, as the one who should be working with them.

You accuse us of whining. What should a person do if they see what they believe is a rights violation? Nothing? Complaining rather loudly is the duty of every American citizen when they believe their rights may be getting violated.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by truthquest]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is not a constitutional issue. It is an issue about a law that was written to prevent the local sheriff from conscripting military personnel as auxiliary law enforcement officers. This citzen's duty to help the sheriff ["posse"] does not extend to citizens who are also military personnel so they are exempted from being in the posse. What would be illegal would be for a law enforcement agency to "deputize" the Marines and have them make arrests. This would remove the Marines from the control of their commander and place them under local law enforcement. It is apparent that this would not be a good situation because the commander would then have no authority over his own troops.
The Constitution is safe and you are safe because of our servicemen. If you would like to be a part of that protection, join the military. If you would like to protect our citizens from evil-doers, join law enforcement. If you would like to protect fellow citizens from irresponsibility, don't drive drunk.
Whatever you do, save your outrage for something important.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GRANDWORLDDRAMA
 


You do mean like 'Grease' right?


So think we should all break out in song and dance?

Who who who who!

[edit on 20-12-2008 by antar]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE...WTF!!! Ive never heard of this. wow that is really scary stuff. Im gonna have to do some research. I really am in shock.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I am an honorably discharged army vet. All military police receive training with respect to traffic laws as well criminal law statutes. So I agree. Just blowing smoke. Respectfully submitted.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
this is all very upsetting
do coastal cities really match the "no contitution zones?"
i was thinking the actual border line is out at see a ways...

i can see san diego and maybe bangor maine...

would it make sense to just suit up and join the military to at least get supplies and insider information and maybe be protected some how
if it gets this bad this is about survival not about being right--right now, a revolution can occur from within with the right people easier than from with out among the populace... it seems



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I lived most of my life in the Coachella Valley, and I have been up to Morongo, Yucca, 29 Palms, and points beyond plenty of times. I'm familiar with the cops up there (and they'd be familiar with me too, except I know the backroads better than they do). I also was a Marine and have known Marines from 29 Palms, though I was never stationed there.

1. It's not uncommon for guys to come out of the military with fewer marketable skills than they expected. My uncle was an electrician in the Navy. He worked on technology that was at least a decade behind the times and when he came out and got a job at Texas Instruments, he got fired on his first day.
It makes perfect sense for MPs to get themselves a little courtesy training from the locals so that they can stay up to date on modern law enforcement techniques and technologies, because law enforcement is not a primary military function and the military will not always advance in that field at the same pace as civilian law enforcement. It's not illegal for the military to be there for some purposes. The intent is that the military should not be used as muscle by law enforcement.

2. The cops up in that area are a bunch of high strung children. I've met them socially and heard their stories, in addition to seeing them in action. They're corrupt, they're abusive, and they're inept. I've witnessed it first hand. My mother has been a victim of their misconduct several times. The military has an interest in monitoring a situation where those cops might be busting Marines.

3. It is not uncommon for military bases to put restrictions on the movement of troops on liberty as a general safeguard, and also more extreme restrictions on certain individuals as a form of discipline.

One such set of restrictions stems from the Marine Corps' exceptional problem with traffic fatalities. Marines on boot leave and on libo from the school of infantry may not drive. I'm not certain, but the same may also apply in MOS training other than infantry (some of which is held at 29 Palms- I forget who they've got there, radar operators or fire direction controllers or something like that). They also require Marines who ride motorcycles to wear a reflective vest. Given such regulations, it makes sense that if there is a DUI checkpoint that a lot of Marines will be going through enroute to Palm Springs, MPs might want to be on hand to observe for violations.

4. The above is especially true because we were expecting heavy rain that weekend (snow for the high desert), and that always makes things ugly in the pass between Morongo and Palm Springs- usually CHP ends up running escorts IF the highway is open at all. Any Marine who went to Palm Springs on Friday night would have been coming back on Saturday or Sunday in extremely adverse conditions. All the more reason for MPs to be observing their own while they were going through the checkpoint.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Whatever you do, save your outrage for something important.


Yes exactly, something important like...like...

The erosion of our constitutional rights!



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
PS, I live in the "no constitution zone" and we DO have the constitution.

In reality it's a "slightly altered 4th ammendment zone".

And the whole "zone" isn't really that way either, just a few major routes within the zone.

Basically, the only difference from anywhere else is that the cops may pull you over and conduct a search with less stringent restrictions.

In my entire life, I've only left the so-called "no constitution zone" for about a months worth of time, but I've never had any problem. One of the place I go where they do have the constitution is Vegas, and the cops there bug me more than a lot of cops in the "zone".



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by fiorano
 


Thing is, if all hell breaks out due to a global financial catastrophe, the Military is not going to have many more supplies than anyone else for the new G.I.'s at least not an endless supply.

I was told many years ago that when this all comes down they will move our Military to other countries and others here. This way there is less chance of soldiers not complying when told to go into neighborhoods to eradicate or arrest the terrorists. Also language will be a barrier and less chance of swaying soldiers opinions on matters.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It makes sense since many metropolitan police agencies are on hiring freezes, with no end in site due to budget cuts. Most cities of all sizes would be seriously understaffed if a disaster ever did take place. MPs have much stricter oversight than police agencies, meaning fewer chances of harassment and performance failure which is a serious problem. Training troops in a community also facilitates positive working relationships and communication that would be helpful if a domestic incident ever did happen. A lot of the military people also are involved in philanthropic work with poor people and kids in the general public, not to mention assisting families of the deployed who aren't receiving public assistance. A lot of cops also are ex-military so they share a common training background to begin with and would be in a better position to facilitate domestic training instead of someone who is learning from a textbook.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


This is absolutely a constitutional issue. This is a direct violation of the Posse Comitatas Act.

Not only that, but it is more serious than we originally thought. The Marines were not just observing. They were conducting joint operations. Joint operations means that the Marines were directly involved in police duties on U.S. soil, which means it is a direct violation of the Posse Comitatas Act.

Read the first two paragraphs from an article I found on Alex Jone's website today:

Branson Hunter, writing for the Big Bear Observation Post blog, reports that the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) and the local California Highway Patrol will be working together over the holiday “in a joint effort to reduce accidents and drinking and driving” in San Bernardino County.
Hunter contacted Corporal Knuesn of the MCAGCC Provost Marshal office and MCAGCC Public Affairs Chief, Gunny Sgt. Chris Cox. Both confirmed the USMC will be present on public roads in order to setup a military presence during routine DUI check stops. “They will be working closely over the month to cut down of traffic accidents,” said Cox, “the Military Police will observe DUI check points and watch for their own guys. The intent is to have military presence out there.”


Full article is here:
www.infowars.com...

This story is also being discussed on many other alternative websites, such as Godlike productions, the DrudgeReport, the DailyPaul, DemocracyNow, etc....

I can't understand why everybody isn't alarmed about this, and why some of you think that this is nothing. Don't you see....our government is slowly eroding away the basic fundamental rights of our Constitution. No, of course they won't do it all at once....they're not going to come in and declare martial law overnight and take away everybody''s rights. They start with little things, the things that nobody really cares about.... and then before you know it, within a few years, you're wondering where your rights as an American citizen went.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by nikiano]

P.S. This issue is also being discussed in yahoo/news forums. Not just only on conspiracy theory sites.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7H3Y 4R3 C0M1N6
Meh maybe it would be better to have military checkpoints. When I was in Egypt they had checkpoints full of guys with with ak-47s and trucks with mounted machine guns. I know I know, we aren't Egypt but still, I think people are over reacting about military presence. When it becomes abundant all over the place and becomes restricting, then I think it would be time to take some sort of action.

When it becomesabundant and restrictive I think it would be a LITTLE too late to take "some sort of action"



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
This is known as a Multi Jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF) and is nothing new it hearkens back all the way to the "War on Drugs" of the Regan regime. The "War on Terror" is just the latest "National Emergency" to use these desensitization tactics to get us to accept this end zone run around the constitution They have been using "Selective Enforcement Zones" to enforce traffic laws and gain acceptance of these new military roles. California is not alone ....coming soon to a neighborhood near you. DIRT



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


Find something in the Constitution about this. It is just a law written to protect the soldiers from out of control civilian law enforcement. In this case, the law is NOT being broken because the Marines are not enforcing civilian law on civilians. They are enforcing Marine Regs on Marines. The Sheriff/CHP does not control the Marines. The Marines are not under his control. They are under the control of the Marine Corps chain of command. Hence, no violation. Nothing illegal. No 'erosion of Constitution' whatever that means, here.
Why, you ask, might the Marines be at the DUI checkpoint, observing? Because they do not assume the authority to stop non-Marines. The CHP can stop EVERYBODY but the Marines can only stop Marines. OK so far? So the Marines can't stop cars at their own DUI checkpoint on public highways because they don't know which has a Marine driver and which doesn't. They tag along on the CHP checkpoint because the CHP's can stop... who?...EVERYBODY. Now you ask, why don't they just stop cars on base? That is because they DO stop cars on base but on base is not where young Marines are getting killed. Where are they getting killed? On the public highway. What do the Marines want to do? Enforce driving regs on young Marines. Who can they legally stop? Marines. Who can stop EVERYBODY? CHP. Still with me?
Now, when one of the cars of EVERYBODY that is stopped by CHP has a Marine driver, the MP's can enforce Marine regulations which, by the way, are far more stringent than any civilian regulations. Otherwise, they don't interfere. Why don't they take part in Civilian arrests? The 'Posse' Law.

That was easy, wasn't it?



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Let me clear something up.

There are many sworn state and local police officers that are military police officers in military reserve units.
there are some military police that are sworn federal law enforcement officers after they have completed there training and have a number of hours of on the job training.

Both CAN arrest you anywhere in the US without violating the Posse Comitatus Act because they are also LEOs

Why because they are sworn law enforcement officers. the fact the are also military police officers is secondary to this.

I know of a Bureau of Land Management law enforcement ranger that is also reserve county sheriff deputy and a US Army reserve military police officer.
He can arrest you just about anywhere in the US and in any uniform he happens to be wearing.

It was common during WW2 for military police officers to be given identification as federal marshals service officers so that they would not be hassled by cops because they carries concealed weapons.

Also because Washington DC is not a state and is a federal district the military police are not restricted under the Posse Comitatus Act. They have full police powers at the order of the president at any time.

If someone pulled a gun at one of these DUI checkpoints and fired at a local police officer the military police can return fire as police officers because they are federal police officers and they see a felony being committed.

Military law enforcement agencies can have exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary jurisdiction for police and criminal investigative activities involving the following:

* Criminal activities on domestic and foreign military bases

* All military personnel regardless of location

* Security and terrorism interests worldwide

* Fraudulent activities involving military procurement worldwide

* Other special interests unique to the military environment

This means that although military law enforcement's jurisdiction is generally limited to military installations and facilities, its interest may also follow military personnel and Department of Defense special interests wherever they are found.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Thanks for the extra detail, ANNED. Those military police who have no other affiliations are limited by the law but the law may not be as limiting as some think it is.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


so what your saying is that they were warning u
to shut up or else?





top topics
 
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join