It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Army patrols downton Samson AL after shooting spree

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


So let me guess....

Take the guns away from the people?!?!

Get out of my country.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mf_luder
reply to post by jd140
 


So let me guess....

Take the guns away from the people?!?!

Get out of my country.


What the heck are you talking about? I have never hinted at taking guns away from people. Again, what the heck are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 


I am afraid it wasn't a set up. I live around this area and it was all real. It is shocking no matter where it happens. I also don't remember the army being in the streets. We had law from two states(Fla.), and surrounding counties lawmen. That was plenty! Also, this man was known to all who knew him to be the quite type and polite. This wasn't of his nature. He also had high powered assault weapons and out powered the law here. I don't know why the law doesn't have that kind....they have the high powered fast cars(dodge chargers). They should have what they may need! If they were legal to buy and own one, then I would assume the law would have the best also? He may have already switched his tv to digital and they've been screwing with his mind as he watched tv! (haha) It is still very sad for the survivors.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by imysbbad]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcgilligan02
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act ***SNIP***

The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill. [3]

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[1] In order for military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.



And you sir, are missing the point entirely.

1) The above act specifically says "The President may employ... etc..." yet I haven't read anywhere that the President sent these troops.

2) The above act describe situations where military may be used. Do you think working a crime scene where the killer is already dead is one of those situations? That is absurd. The threat had already passed.

3) The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is still valid. It was enacted to prevent the military from acting as a police force. There are civilian police forces that could have easily helped secure the crime scene as there was no confrontation left, only investigation.

Seriously, what were they there for? They weren't bagging evidence, they aren't allowed to question witnesses, the killer was already dead. Were they going to hand out traffic citations or do sobriety tests to people swerving? There was nothing for them to do, and no legal reason to be there. The military was never designed to police The People. I don't care how comforted some are that "the military is here, everything is fine now!!" The military was designed to protect The People, not police them.

In closing let me say that I am an not Anti-Military. I am very thankful for the men and women of our Armed Forces. They are outstanding individuals whom we owe a great deal of respect and gratitude toward. I just believe that they should not be misused as a police force.

***EDITED to shorten the quotation a bit***

[edit on 3/13/2009 by Autonomous]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Autonomous
 


Thank you for your "polite reply" and not just attack me like some other person did. But as I see this as the covered under the following:

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
No problem at all. This is a discussion, not a sermon, and I feel all sides should leave knowing that even if their point isn't agreed upon, atleast it was considered and understood.


About your reply, please not that the act says this:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order ....etc etc.


What I am referring to is that the President did not send these personnel, they were instead sent by the FBI, so the story goes, and the FBI has no Constitutional Authority to do so.

In the end I wish to get this point across:

If we have rules set forth by the government to limit the government, then I was to see those rules followed. I hold no ill will towards the men and women of our Armed Forces, I only wish to see our government follow its own laws. If they do not lead by example then they shouldn't lead at all.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Autonomous
 


Whos to say they didn't get permission from the President? The local FBI could have contacted DC and asked for a little help. That sounds plausible to me.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Autonomous
 


Whos to say they didn't get permission from the President? The local FBI could have contacted DC and asked for a little help. That sounds plausible to me.


Plausible, certainly, but it was not stated as such, thus at this time it would only be an assumption that the President gave the order. Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he is for transparency in government, so if the order was from him it would most likely be stated as such.

Again, still plausible, but to most it would be nonsensical for the President to send military personnel to protect a crime scene where there is no threat left.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
True, but it could work both ways. It would be an assumption to say he didn't. A little thing as this wouldn't get reported and I'm sure he would't have anyone from his cabinet give a press conferance because of it.

It was a one night thing, hardley a reason to alert the media for.

Then again it could have been NG and the FBI contacted the Governer and he gave the okay for a few soldiers to be there. Which is even more plausible.

Either way, a few soldiers for a few hours being used is hardley worthy of giving a statement to the media.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
About my post: I am more interested in pointing out the fact that us 'good,' loving, honest, reasonable and true are pitted against an ever growing number of gunned-up psychopaths. This transcends plotical lines, race, religion, econmics. I want to stay positive, but in my mind this is the threat above all threats.

Pointing out the fact that a couple of MPs were on the street, even if it's unconstitutional and underreported, was merely a lead in to my real point. The psychos are the enemy. Killing our children, mothers, fathers, friends. This will not be a revolution, but a war against the legion of madness. Are you getting ready? It will come in spurts, then one day WAMM! we are in a 48 hour death match. You ready? Guns? Ammo? Tactical gear?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Z.S.P.V.G.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Z.S.P.V.G.
 


You edited your post and thats what you ended up with?

Mind using telling us what you are trying to say without the ramblings?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Just about any time a president sends troops to police an area he first calls for a "State of Emergency", and it is well broadcast. I can't think of any time when that has not been the case.

As for the governor angle: I'm no lawyer, but I am pretty certain that a State Governor does not have the Constitutional Right to command the United States Army.

There is a separation of State and Federal law enforcement for a reason. There are plenty of State Entities who could have helped out if there was a need. There was no need for military personnel to secure a "cold" crime scene. It was not a situation in need of military intervention.

Please understand this action in and of itself is not a big deal, but to let a precedence to be set that an entity, not authorized by The Constitution, be allowed to command our military forces to act as a police force is just too slippery a slope.

I see your point, but please take a moment to see mine. There are laws in place to limit government encroachment upon the Rights of The People.

(On a side note, I really and truly need to go to bed. I wish you all a good night and I look forward to picking up on this topic in the morning.)



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Z.S.P.V.G.
 


This is pretty scary stuff. I can remember not too long ago in California I believe there was an issue of the military working a police DWI checkpoint alongside officers. The issue was addressed as having the military members not taking any active part in the checkpoints but simply observing them for training purposes.

I myself recently got out of the Air Force after 6 years and two tours of duty in Iraq working as Force Protection. If you do not fear the military then you must not have ever served in the military. On an Air Force base we have thousands of people all working towards one single goal...to kill. Simple. Kill. Our official base motto at Shady J was "Bombs on target, on time." or to put it simply, "Warheads on Foreheads." The cooks make chow and the financial people process checks and the gym attendant hands out towels and myself, I was a weapons troop, loaded bombs. Everyone worked in a gloriously synchronized team together to get the aircraft off the ground and have it use weapons to kill people. And this is the nice happy shiny Air Force. Apply the tactic of purely killing the enemy to the Army or Marine core.

My favorite quote is one by Ben Franklin- "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I can think of no better example of where this quote fits than this story.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
When I first heard the details on this story I though that this guy was a ‘targeted individual’, a gangstalking (COINTELPRO) victim who had his family and everyone else turned against him and couldn’t handle it. I’m still leaning that way but the violation of posse comitatus now has me wondering if he wasn’t a mind control victim. Either way, the PTB are certainly getting all of the mileage they can out it. They seem to be stepping up the pace, and no longer worried about concealing their actions and intentions.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


LOL

Sorry - I was angry posting. Need to quit doing that. I think I read too far into what you were saying.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
Then again, this may actually be the NG and not an active duty unit.


These days, what is the difference?

Where has the NG been lately, and what have they been doing over there?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Has anyone else thought that this guy's rampage might have been "triggered" in order to confiscate more guns? Excuse me if this has already been brought up, I'm late to this thread.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I have thought about it. It was way out of his character to do what he did even if he was depressed real bad. I have been at my lowest a few times in my life but there is no way I would go on a killing spree. I have always thought something was 'up' on all the killing sprees that happen and they just kill anyone they run into. I think they might have been an "experiment" going on. "They" have been doing experiments on humans for many years and all over the world in different places. I also think it has something to do with getting the public to be against people having guns, too. No matter what happens anywhere or anytime involving guns, WE MUST NOT GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS !



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autonomous
reply to post by jd140
As for the governor angle: I'm no lawyer, but I am pretty certain that a State Governor does not have the Constitutional Right to command the United States Army.

There is a separation of State and Federal law enforcement for a reason. There are plenty of State Entities who could have helped out if there was a need. There was no need for military personnel to secure a "cold" crime scene. It was not a situation in need of military intervention.

Please understand this action in and of itself is not a big deal, but to let a precedence to be set that an entity, not authorized by The Constitution, be allowed to command our military forces to act as a police force is just too slippery a slope.


The National Guard is a state entity as long as they are not federally activated. The governor is in control of ALL National Guard units in the state, it even says so in the oath we take when we enlist. Yes, he does have the authorization to do what is called a "state call-up," or "state deployment" in situations he feel is necessary.

The sheer ignorance of the law and constitution is startling in current times. There used to be a point when everyone understood the concept and point of National Guardsmen and their completely separate uses from Regular Army, which is in fact federal and cannot be used in the country. I guess the line has blurred as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan and our increasing deployment rate... National Guard is no longer differentiated from Regular Army in the sense they used to be. It was the intent for the Regular Army and Reserves to deploy to other countries, and NG to stay stateside in case of emergencies. We are the "homeland security," or at least we used to be. This has since shifted drastically from Vietnam-era policies and we're simply stretched too thin now. But that's another story.

tl;dr - National Guard is controlled by the governor unless that specific unit has been called up for federal activation.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcgilligan02
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Its funny that your ignorance is blind to the truth. Maybe you should of taken that walk instead of calling me ignorant. tsk tsk.


And yet, you did not refute a single thing that I posted.

Which upsets you more, that fact that I was correct, or the fact that I pointed out your ignorance involving this matter?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by sir_chancealot]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join