Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets

reply to post by silent thunder

The US needs to make it clear if it is going to tolerate armed forces openly patrolling its streets.

To be blunt - the alternative is PMCs that could come from other countries (China).

Quite simply, in passing or defeating this bill, America is deciding what kind of a long-term society it wants to be. Will this join the long list of "firsts" in curtailing rights that we've seen as a steady march in the post 9-11 years?

*sigh*

I am a Navy Reservist (well, technically active duty since I'm deployed, but notwithstanding...). I have friends and family all across the midwest, east coast, and parts of the western areas. Why would I, and the mere 1.5 million other reservists like me (across all the branches), go to the effort of attempting to round up each others friends, families, and the like?

We wouldn't.

Now, would I deploy to stop you from burning down their houses because you're on some pity-party riot ("Look at us, we don't have money, because we can't figure out how to earn a living unless someone signs us a pay check! People who have a living are therefor bad!")? .... Yeah - I'd do that. Not saying I'd throw everyone in a detainee camp for an indefinite amount of time - but I'd exercise the means necessary to disperse the crowd and likely just execute the individuals responsible for inciting a riot (and spend the rest of my life in jail - but that's the way law works).

So, simply put - in today's society, you have nothing to worry about if you are being orderly about things.

Hell - I don't care if you mount an insurrection. Just don't terrorize the population, and we won't have a problem. Otherwise, people like me will ensure your soul experiences an unhealthy amount of rapeage.

And beyond the petty hassles and humiations, the end to truly free movement looms as Lockdown America emerges, deciding it values "security" over liberty. Just one more notch upwards on the stove dial for the slow frog boil of vanishing rights.

The more I travel - the more I gain an appreciation for the rights Americans do and don't have by comparison.

Take the UAE - the only two telecom companies are owned by the government and all traffic is monitored. Hypothetically - if I were there - things I say and do while on the internet can get me thrown in jail - and not talks of assassinating people. Pornography, politically disagreeable statements, etc can all get you thrown in jail... or at least an officer to visit (who may or may not be able to be convinced apprehending a few 200 Dirham bills is preferable to dragging you in). People have been known to get caught even while using a VPN.

On the other hand - they have built up so rapidly here because they are willing to let people come in to work and to allow companies to have fairly free reign. The malls sell absolutely scandalous outfits (in a Muslim country) while audio systems blast sultry American hip-hop about girl-on-girl or bondage.

Yet, you can still have the security guards at the malls come up and ask you to not cross your feet (it shows the bottoms of your feet; a harmless gesture in most other parts of the world, but an insult in arab nations, usually).

Sometimes I think that America has contracted such a paranoia about its own government that it has ultimately given up its most pertinent right... that it (the American people) is the government. Americans are responsible for the function of their government. Yet they allow themselves to become distracted by political parties, isolated issues, and self-important charity agendas.

Rather than remembering that the government is only one part of being a country (the other parts being society, business/industry, and communication) - we have, subconsciously, centered the government at everything and made it shoulder the responsibility.

In a sense... the fact that the government is seen as needing to state our rights is evidence enough that we have already forfeit the right to be our government.

reply to post by Aim64C


All good points.
Yet you have to admit a major erosion of civil liberties, esp in the last ten years. One need not be paranoid to be concerned about that. True, things are relative and compared to most other places in the world, we're still sitting pretty. That does not mean we shouldn't be vigilant in guarding our freedoms and/or regaining the ones lost.
The 4th amendment is all but gone as far as federal agencies are concerned. The new NDAA legislation and EO 13603 present language that is troublesome to say the least.

And I'm not certain, but didn't some Bush era legislation or EO effectively reverse Posse Comitatus?
Its never been applied, though.

The small contingent of regular troops that were present during Katrina were never used for law enforcement purposes. They were mainly there as a PR stunt for W. They were never allowed to use their weapons against civilians.
National Guard units from all over the nation were under the control of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco in Title 32 status, meaning the federal government pays for them but the state retains control.
Title 10 status is when the NG is under Presidential control, ie overseas or sometimes domestically but in a role that is supporting overseas ops.
This doesn't mean that Title 10 will never be used domestically, mind you. It just means it never has been to date.

The "disarming of civilians" during Katrina meme that pops up on ATS is largely untrue. In general, NG units left civilians alone unless they presented a threat to other civilians. There were one or 2 very limited incidents of "house to house" disarming, largely due to lack of communications. Those units or agency teams were acting on their own authority as opposed to some general order. In some neighborhoods, armed "neighborhood militias" were allowed to operate to protect their own area (sometimes overzealously).

As for the National Guard quelling insurgency or being activated for civil unrest, that is and always has been one of their primary functions. State militias (which is what the NG is) have maintained that role since colonial times. Not saying one should like it, but it's true.

I think its a dangerous piece of legislation. Once this pieces of legislation become law, they will slowly chip away at any other laws that forbid troop from stepping on the rights of its citizens.

Originally posted by stanguilles7


Also, Posse Comitatus doesnt cover the Marines, or the Navy.

Posse Comitatus does apply to the Marines and Navy.

Take the military bomb techs for example. They have to have a memorandum of agreement with local jurisdictions to respond to explosive devices off of military installations. Then they have to be requested by the local police departments through the Base Commander before they can respond.

Because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

Yet you have to admit a major erosion of civil liberties, esp in the last ten years. One need not be paranoid to be concerned about that.

My point is that the problem isn't the government so much as it is people making the distinction between government and people.

If the bureaucracy is too isolated from the population - by any means or in any form - then it has become overly centralized and cannot perform the function due a government.

To contrast it with the UAE:

In the UAE - the government is comprised of the hereditary and financial oligarchies established over the generations. It is detached from the people in that it does, largely, what it will. People are not heavily involved in the government - and the government is not heavily involved in the people (aside from ensuring they don't cause trouble).

In the US - the American population tends to take everything to the government. Courts end up establishing laws by reviewing judgments made upon similar cases (a process that should be banned and anyone found utilizing it instantaneously executed for treason; judges are employed to judge and evaluate each case on its own). Legislators are pressured or tempted into drafting legislation that appeals to special interest groups and individuals who believe their problem can/should be solved by the government. The President is hounded for his opinion on the murder of some irrelevant teenager whose case just happens to be creating a media frenzy.

In doing that - we have isolated ourselves from the government in that we have decided they are the ultimate authority over us. Nothing we do can escape the bureaucracy because someone thinks it is the responsibility of government. From issues as irrelevant as to who we share the bed with to issues as important as what constitutes citizenship.

Rather than solving the problems on our own - we have decided that it is the government that must make these decisions for us... or - rather - that we need to get the government to side with our preferences and decision.

It's worse than what is present in the UAE - in my estimation. Worse than Korea. Worse than Japan.

It's not that those places have more freedom. It's that America has lost the concept of what it really is to be free.

We think freedom is in jeopardy when pat-downs are given to people boarding an airplane.

While it's a hot-button issue... it's a pathetic one.

I honestly worry about whether or not I will be legally allowed to parent my child(ren) - because some group of activists gets a law passed that enforces their view of parenting. Or whether my kid would end up at the center of some kind of national media bonanza because I taught him/her something I found appropriate for his/her abilities (if atypical for the age group).

America fears the "nanny state" and "big brother" almost unanimously. But the mentality we have adopted with our persistence to crusade our personal values into every home across the nation via legislation and media harassment is going to create exactly that.

reply to post by Aim64C


You might fear a "nanny state", but your other comment about people "running to the government" to fix things also shows that "you" are also seeking one.

It is a common problem IMO - people thinking "the government" should fix things/look after them/spend less/spend more/etc - a whole bunch of self contradictory things people want "the government" to do as if, somehow, "the government" has its own sources of income (other than taxation) and isn't made up of citizens of the country in question (it isn't limited to the USA!!)

reply to post by Aim64C


Agreed. Ultimately, the tangle we find ourselves in is of our own doing.
Somewhere along the way, self reliance and personal responsibility seem to have become vilified while victimhood and dependency are celebrated.
There is no other result possible but failure with this mindset in place.
If the American people manned up and accepted that we are responsible for the current situation, that would be a major first step in righting the situation.
But too many people are going blame everything on "the teabaggers", or "the liberals", or those horrible greedy rich people that supply us with jobs and innovation.

Originally posted by watchitburn

Originally posted by stanguilles7


Also, Posse Comitatus doesnt cover the Marines, or the Navy.

Posse Comitatus does apply to the Marines and Navy.

Not exactly. The PCAct only applies to the Army and, later, the Air force. Since it doesnt explicitly refer to the Marines or Navy, they are not regulated by it, but are instead regulated by a Department of Defense directive.

Military Coverage Navy and Marines. The Posse Comitatus Act proscribes use of the Army or the Air Force to execute the law. It says nothing about the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or the National Guard. The courts have generally held that the Posse Comitatus Act by itself does not apply to the Navy or the Marine Corps. They maintain, however, that those forces are covered by similarly confining administrative and legislative supplements, which appear in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive.

Source

www.fas.org...

reply to post by stanguilles7


Thank you,

Huh, my memory must be worse than I thought.

I can tell you the Marines are taught that it applies to them. They are taught that they may assist local law enforcement, if requested. But they are forbidden from conducting searches or making arrests.

I am going to have to read through that again, it's been six or seven years.

reply to post by stanguilles7


10 USC 375 - Restriction on direct participation by military personnel is the offical law that directly deals with DoD and the use of armed forces of all branches in civilian law enforcement activites.

Specifically it prohibits -

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.

USC Title 10 - Armed Forces

For those who still thin Bush repealed the act in 2006/7 - This is what was changed to the act.

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:


The President may employ the armed forces... to... 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... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... 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... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[9]

This is what happened -

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act[10] that in its original form was written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

Active duty military cannot engage in civilian law enforcement functions under current law (3 of them to be specific, including posse committus).

As a side note the US Coast Guard has Fedeal Law Enforcement abilities where as their military counterparts do not. This might change depending on their status at the time (part of homeland security or forwarded to the DoD during times of armed conflict).

Posse Comitatus has been violated so many times it's practically and legally useless.

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular
Posse Comitatus has been violated so many times it's practically and legally useless.

When?

Please cite enough examples.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular
Posse Comitatus has been violated so many times it's practically and legally useless.

When?

Posse Comitatus Violations

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular
Posse Comitatus has been violated so many times it's practically and legally useless.

When?

Posse Comitatus Violations

Sorry. A link to a Google search of the term "Posse Comitatus Violations" is not you doing your homework.

I want you to list at least three examples to uphold your claim that it has happened 'so many times'.

Or admit you dont know what the snip you are taking about.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Not exactly. The PCAct only applies to the Army and, later, the Air force. Since it doesnt explicitly refer to the Marines or Navy, they are not regulated by it, but are instead regulated by a Department of Defense directive.

Seriously, you need a refresher in how to Google?

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


Again, please cite some specific examples where Posse Comitatus has been violated.

Cat got your tongue?

Really, you have not to worry about the AFRC. They're about as harmless as a kitten with no claws and teeth. Trust me. I am a part of the AFRC. Literally, we are civilians in uniform having fun on one weekend a month and two weeks a year. I see guys calling each other by first names and acting like it's no different than a regular work place. Sure we have the military training and all, but the Air Force has VERY LIMITED ground training unless you're security forces or one of the specops, I forget what they're called. On the other hand, there are a lot of prior services guys, mostly Marines, that I've met. I'm a former Marine as well. Question: why would we make the change from active duty Marine Corps to AFR? Answer: to enjoy our military service. Not saying the Marine Corps isn't enjoyable, mind you.

Not saying this isn't troubling, but more that it's kind of funny. "Oh no! Those Air Force guys are walking down the street, George!" "Get away from the window, Margret." "But George! They have guns!" "Don't worry, Margret. They are Air Force weekend warriors. They don't even know how to use those."

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

 

Again, please cite some specific examples where Posse Comitatus has been violated.

Cat got your tongue?

The only time I an think of it was the article I posted. From a State aspect there was no violation because of the Sheriff requesting mutual aid asistance, meaning the military was under his authority. The resulting military investigation found the military broke the law by responding. Even then because of the circumstances no action was taken against the base commander or MP's involved.

Aside from that I have not found one case where it was broken.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

 

Again, please cite some specific examples where Posse Comitatus has been violated.

Last chance.

Posse Comitatus Specific Violations By the Hundreds

Have a wonderful life, Troll.

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

Last chance.

I don't recall giving you permission to use my line.

Posse Comitatus Specific Violations By the Hundreds

And you know what that is full of?

Nothing. What few legitimate cases there are suffer from grave incompetence on the part of those reporting the violation of the Posse Comitatus act. In other words - they wouldn't know a violation of the Posse Comitatus act from an unlawful traffic stop.

Now, I know you're going to pull the whole: "Burden of proof is on you!"

- But you linked to a google search, my friend. No specific case - just an endless tide of allegations that cannot be fully analyzed by members of this forum.

In light of that, and since you seem to be far more informed than the rest of us - it would be to your advantage to pick a few of your favorite cases or examples and present them for scrutiny.

Unless... of course... you don't have any confidence in your own analytical abilities. And if that's the case - I fail to see why you're bothering to post your opinion on an internet forum. You have to have a bit of an ego and a little narcissism to find entertainment in online discussion.

Have a wonderful life, Troll.

You really don't leave many other options.

I've looked through your google search and have yet to come across anything of real value.... and you assert it's there, bold-faced, and irrefutable.

Since no one but you can find it... it leaves us one possible alternative... to trawl and see what catches in the net.

Back in the days when semi-intelligent people inhabited the internet - a "troll" was a "trawl." Between mispronunciations and the convenience of "don't feed the trolls" - we began calling people trolls. I prefer the old term, because I'm an elitist prick who likes to use terminology deemed more sophisticated.

But - whether you like my style or not; my point remains. You can't link to a google search and try to use it as proof of your claim.