Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

California Check Points with Military Happening

page: 6
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Sorry but an LEO can only use his power within the jurisdiction of his department and for traffic matters only when uniformed and operating in a marked police car.

Even a reservist who belonged to the CHP would be violating posse comitatus if he was in his Marine Corps uni and acting under the USMC chain of command. Otherwise temporary deputization by a county sheriff would be able to completely nullify posse comitatus (sheriff departments in drug-traffick burdened Texas counties use such a loophole to hire mercinaries, but that's a different matter from deputizing an entire Marine unit).




posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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?


About the only thing you cleared up in that explanation is the fact that police officers can be just as condescending off the clock as they are on duty.

Ok, fine: As far as the Constitution is concerned, here you go:

Direct quote from the Constitution from Section 10, Powers Prohibited of States:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Summary: No state shall.....keep troops.....in a time of peace.

Using the Marines in a joint task force with the CHP to reduce the number of drunk drivers, on STATE-owned land, on STATE-owned highways, during peacetime (whether or not they are arresting Marines or not) constitutes a direct violation of the prohibted actions of states by the Constitution. Because this action, in effect, is "keeping troops" in times of peace.

The Constitution specifically puts the president and the president only in charge of the military, and specifically restricts ANY state from the actions mentioned above. Therefore, states, or state highway patrols cannot use the military in any way, except for a "national emergency" as outlined by Bush in recent years since 9/11, and I don't think drunk driving on a state highway constitutes a national emergency.

And yes, we are officially in peacetime. Since Congress has not officially declared War (because only Congress can declare war, not the president, according to the Constitution) then we are officially in a time of peace. And even if we are "unofficially" in a time of war, I don't think we're at a war with Californian drunk drivers. (Unless Bush wants to declare war on drunk driving next, but I don't think it's gonna happen.)

But don't just take it from me. According to Constitutional Scholars, "the role of the military in the US Consitution is limited to "the responsibility of quelling "insurrections" and repelling invasions, as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government."

Now, unless those Californian drunk drivers were planning an insurrection, I don't think the Marines were authorized to operate in a joint task force to observe for drunk drivers on U.S. soil, whether or not they were Marine soldiers. It does not fall within their realm of duties under the Constitution.

As far as the posse comitatas act goes, it IS a violation. Because the Posse Commitatas Act of the United States Code clearly states this:

18 U.S.C. § 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.

(note that it says posse comitatus or otherwise!)

Furthermore, in the United States Code, it also says this:

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

See...that is very clear. The military cannot participate in a search, seizure, arrest or OTHER SIMILAR ACTIVITY unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. I don't know of any U.S. law on the books that SPECIFICALLY authorizes military to stop drunk drivers, off of federal land, and on state land.

But then again, you're the police officer. If there is a law that allows federal MPs to participate in joint task force to reduce drunk driving, can you cite it to me?




[edit on 21-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
LOOK...I was a marine, I was departed from the Marine Corps in early 03 most of the time in 29 palms,CA.
TRUST ME, The military knows how to do DUI's, I should know, I was pulled over entering the gate on suspicion. They pulled me out, took me into the shack, and did numerous tests to see how drunk I was.
THE MILITARY is armed with billion dollar weaponry,for them to say that they are just learning how to check for DUI's is ridiculous.
They are the military, they know how to drop a bomb down someones throat, but arent prepared to stop local drivers who had one too many to drink>? OH THEY KNOW!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA
Be prepared, for the worst has yet to come people.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
One Marine to another, I think we both could come up with an example or two to show that sometimes the Marine Corps knows how to do something and still does it wrong.

Take that in conjunction with the fact that techniques do change (up until a couple years ago it was accepted practice to approach the drivers side in a T-stop, but for the last few years I've always seen cops approach from the passenger side). I think it makes sense for military professionals to see how their civilian counterparts are doing things once in a while, to stay up to date.

God knows I'd have been a much happier man during my enlistment if the personel at Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton had been around the civilian sector and learned from them. Isolation is a bad thing because inequalities do develop from different paces of innovation. I've even heard that there is a significant difference in quality between hospitals on the East and West coasts.

When somebody else does what you do more, or gets more money to do it, or otherwise gets an enhanced experience, it's only smart to pick their brains.

And on top of that, as I've said, the USMC had a stake in that checkpoint. I bet 20% of the arrests that night were Marines (I'd guess more, except Morongo/Yucca is the freakin sticks and there's not a lot of sobriety going on among all those rednecks).



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


i dont know much about your laws and constitution , what ive read on this site seems a couple of things will tie in together . are you not expecting a major quake in the california/ san andreas area. if so it would be common sense for the millitary to train in civil emergency policing like road checks. some of the projections for the quake ive seen talk about 1 million people affected by it. could chp deal with those sort of numbers?



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
NOT in LA - ORANGE or VENTURA COUNTYS...

Seen all three today 5 - 101 S - N



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 



You said: "Ok, fine: As far as the Constitution is concerned, here you go:

Direct quote from the Constitution from Section 10, Powers Prohibited of States:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Summary: No state shall.....keep troops.....in a time of peace."

Corrected Summary: This means Congress must consent to states having their own armies and navies, writing treaties with other states and foreign countries, or declaring war.
This law was written to keep the military from acting as civilian law enforcement personnel under the control of local authorities. Note again that the Marines are not enforcing laws of any kind on the general populace. They are not stopping the general populace. They are not arresting or ticketing the general populace. This means NO VIOLATION of Posse Comitatus.

You have no case.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Posse Comitatus Act no longer exists. It was signed out of law by George Walker Bush



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


It is still the law. Changes were repealed.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Can anyone source either statement? I would just like to see what is actually on paper about this.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I was taught, that the reason we have posse comatatius, is freedom and democracy.. England, Russia, fracne at the time, the superpowers, had troops patroling the streets...THATS why we have posse comatatius..US wanted to show the world, we had so much freedom and respect for eachother, we dont need troops patroling our street.. terrorizing, aggravating or stealing from the population..



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


First of all a traffic stop is not an arrest. You are being detained. There is a difference. I would tell you to look up the definition however, you would probably resort to the same place that said two officers at the scene is treason. I'm guessing you got that definition of treason from the internet and as we all know, everything on the internet is true...right?

Military law enforcement has changed drastically over the last decade or so. Most bases have a sizeablr civilian work force. How does the military deal with civilians? They don't lock them in a secret underground facility used to question aliens or bigfoot. They detain them until civilian law enforcement arrives on scene and assumes control of the situation.

Maybe if you left your parents basement you would see how the world really works. Not how you think it works based on Anime and the SciFI channel.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 

If you don't mind a wikipedia reference that has both answers in one place with references:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 

Actually it wasn't to show the world anything. It was a practical matter to keep local authorities from deputizing troops to do their work.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   


This law was written to keep the military from acting as civilian law enforcement personnel under the control of local authorities. Note again that the Marines are not enforcing laws of any kind on the general populace. They are not stopping the general populace. They are not arresting or ticketing the general populace.



You say the Marines aren't there to ticket the general population. That is NOT what has been reported by many websites that have been covering this story.

Once again, read this from an article:

Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Provost Marshal (head of a unit of military police) and the local California Highway Patrol office will begin working together 12/12 — and through the holiday season — in a joint effort to reduce accidents and drinking and driving. The combined mutual cooperation between the Marine Corps Military Police and State enforcement officers will begin somewhere along Highway 62. The CHP will set up DUI roadblocks with the presence of Military Police.

This says nothing about the MPs being there to ticket Marine personnel only. It says the CHP will set up DUI roadblocks with the prescence of Military police. (Although, even if they were there to ticket their own troops, which I doubt, it would still not be right.)

So, once again, Mr. Police Officer, I ask you for proof to back your statements. You asked me to give citations to back up my arguments, and I have, on many occasions. So far, I have asked you twice for citations to back up your arguments, and you have not. So far, all you have offered is your best guess and personal opinion.

If the MPs were there to ticket their own Marines, show me something, in writing to prove that that is all they were there for. Show me anything to back up that statement. Because in the beginning of this thread, you said they were there to just observe, and it was "usual and customary" for that to happen.... for CHP and for MP to conduct joint training maneuvers on US soil. I asked you to cite past examples of that, and you did not.

Then I said that the posse comitatus act does not allow the military to do anything involving police duties, unless they are expressly written in a law or in the Constitution. I asked you to show me a law on the books that allows for MPs to conduct DUI task forces with state highway patrol....but you did not.

Now you say that it is not a violation of any law because the MPs are not ticketing regular citizens, but rather Marine personnel. This is wrong, but even so, I ask you once again: show me the proof. Show me something in writing that says that they were there to ONLY ticket Marines. Seriously.

In any case, it is obvious we are going to continue to disagree. Which is fine...this is America, and I usually enjoy a good debate.

Plus, I have to thank you for opening my eyes. This has been very enlightening for me, because before this discussion, I was never really worried that much about Martial law. I was worried about the erosion of our rights, but not really about Martial Law. Why?

Because I have never had a run in with the law, and I always considered you guys (the police) to be fair and just with normal, law abiding citizens. I always assumed that Martial Law would never happen, or, if it did happen, I assumed our military and our police would not be as.....er.... pliable.... as the police were in Nazi Germany and in other similar tyrranical regimes.

I assumed that OUR police, because they were American citizens first, would NEVER do anything their government asked them to do that was against the Constitution, or that would harm us or infringe upon our inalienable rights as American citizens.

I had dreams of a day that one day, if our government ever got corrupt enough to declare martial law under false pretenses, that our police officers and our military would say...."Um, no, I don't think so. I will not blindly follow orders that are not ethical."

Boy, was I wrong.

Because it seems that you, a sworn police officer, don't really care if you're asked to do something that the founding fathers of our country meant to expressly avoid, by precisely crafting and wording the Constitution just so. It seems you don't mind working in a "gray" area when it comes to our Constitutional rights. And that is very, very disconcerting to me.

So, I must say... thanks for opening my eyes.

Now I know who I can trust when the government continues to infringe on our rights little by little. Now I will know who I can trust if Martial Law is ever declared. Will I be able to count on the cops for help? No, from what I've seen here..... you and other police officers will continue to enforce the laws, as they are made, regardless of how unconstitutional they may be. Because that's your job....and you'll do as you're told.

And to me, this is scary, because I had really, really hoped that our police and our military would stand up to tyrrany, even in it's beginning stages.

But I have another question for you.... let's move out of the "gray area" of MPs policing other Marines on U.S. soil. Let's create a scenario that's not quite so "gray."

What would you do, Mr. Police officer, if your captain asked you to take those very same MPs, in their Marine uniforms, along with you to do DUI roadblocks, and told you that the MPs can stop and detain ANYONE they believe could be drunk, regardless or not they were Marines. Would you go along with that order?



[edit on 21-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:24 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.


By then it will be too late.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
They learn firsthand how in the "real world" how drunks act.


So the Marines need training to understand how drunks act?

Have they no life experience?


Originally posted by nikiano
This says nothing about the MPs being there to ticket Marine personnel only. It says the CHP will set up DUI roadblocks with the prescence of Military police. (Although, even if they were there to ticket their own troops, which I doubt, it would still not be right.)


Agreed. I'm sure the state police will have no problem doing a marine with DUI if they are caught driving on a public road drunk. I doubt they'd need assistance.

Seems like they're buttering up people to condition them to think military presence in their streets is normal.

[edit on 21/12/08 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 

OK Nikiano,
First, the phrase “usual and customary” was not in any of my posts. Perhaps you are confused. As to the words you ask for regarding the actions of the Marines, this is from the KESQ story:
Marine Lt. Thomas Beck tells News Channel 3 the Military Police were not arresting people. They were just watching the checkpoint to see how they should do it on base.
"We were not actively participating in enforcing any laws. We were there to observe and observe only, " said Lt. Beck.
The California Highway Patrol says they invited the Marines to tag along.
"We had the DUI checkpoint and invited the Marine Corps in a show of good relations between our two departments," said CHP Officer Rob McLoud.
www.kesq.com...

You then said: “I asked you to show me a law on the books that allows for MPs to conduct DUI task forces with state highway patrol....but you did not.”
The Marines say that they were only observing and not conducting anything. See above.
You said: “Then I said that the posse comitatus act does not allow the military to do anything involving police duties, unless they are expressly written in a law or in the Constitution.”
In fact, military police act as police all the time. They are the police for the military. Military branches all have their own investigative services, also. What that law prohibits is the deputizing of active duty military by civilian law enforcement entities. That means that unless martial law is declared, military personnel cannot be used as law enforcement personnel for civilians.
You said “What would you do, Mr. Police officer…”
What makes you think I am a police officer?



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


My apologies about the police officer remark. I got your screen name confused with pd417 who earlier said:

I work for a large California L.E. agency adjacent to one of the larger military bases in California.

Because your name and his name both begin with p, I got you confused. I thought you were the same person....my mistake...my apologies on that.

In any case, thank you for coming up with that source. I don't buy it that the Marines were there to only observe, but you did come up with a source ask requested.

However, later on you were arguing (at least I think it was you....maybe it was pd417), that it would not be a violation for Marines to be on DUI checkpoints to arrest drunk Marines, and not regular citizens. (At least I think it was you, and not pd417.)

Do you still stand by that argument? Let's say the official statement from the Marines was: they were there to arrest drunk Marines and not regular citizens. Do you still think that would be ok?

(If it was indeed, you who made that argument. Darn.....now I'm not even sure who I'm debating with now! LOL!)






top topics



 
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join