Does this mean we'll have MG-42 ...err I mean M-60 emplacements, guarding the ballot boxes come November?Only in the
bluepurple states.
fixed
LeapingGnome wrote:Isn't this exactly what the National Guard is for? Also I thought there was some law against active military operations inside the country?
Posse Comitatus. It was "amended" (gutted) by the Bush administration in 2006, and recently re-instated by Congress. It would appear that the Bush administration is simply ignoring the law.
Spouting this kind of BS helps no one and only serves to cloud the issue with false claims.
What is the BS? Sounds pretty accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_C...
Posse Comitatus. It was "amended" (gutted) by the Bush administration in 2006, and recently re-instated by Congress. It would appear that the Bush administration is simply ignoring the law.
Your not getting Posse Comitatus, its designed so troops aren't used at cops in peacetime events. Its not designed to keep soldiers from being used on US soil. Lawlessness is still a category that allows US federal troops to be used, pursuant to the Insurrection Act.
Alea iacta est
Alea iacta est
That's not insanely over reactive.
Love the fact they're called 'Sea-Smurfs'... this really is fascism done by Disney. So palatable and cloyingly innocent.
Totally ruined the 'October Surprise' though 
On a brighter note, these guys have been sent packing by teenagers with twenty year-old ak's and pipe bombs for the better part of forty years. You lot are far better armed.
What is the BS? Sounds pretty accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_C...
Only if you ignore the exclusions to the act that have been in place for over a decade in addition to past times when active duty military units have conducted operations within the US.
So how is the "Bush administration is simply ignoring the law" by having a unit on standby?
Alea iacta estThat's not insanely over reactive.
I just like the quote
In all honesty, it makes you wonder if this is in advance of the fallout from whats going on in Mexico.
In all honesty, it makes you wonder if this is in advance of the fallout from whats going on in Mexico.
If Mexico should fall into anarchy/civil war, it would make some sense to 'restore order' if our troops weren't tied up occupying states on the other side of the world. I wouldn't agree, but at least a plausible stability argument could be made.
Or perhaps the drug lords are stockpiling WMDs as well?
LeapingGnome wrote:What is the BS? Sounds pretty accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_C...
Only if you ignore the exclusions to the act that have been in place for over a decade in addition to past times when active duty military units have conducted operations within the US.
So how is the "Bush administration is simply ignoring the law" by having a unit on standby?
The missions that active duty units have been assigned inside the U.S. have been support for anti-drug operations, which required a special exemption and still did not give those military personnel the ability to function as a law enforcement officer.
Since they are not covered by any of the exemptions in the Posse Comitatus Act, these troops can only act based on the Insurrection Act, which as of a few months ago once again requires that there be ... an insurrection, or a total breakdown in state legal authority. That would leave the brigade with no mission, since there is no insurrection and no breakdown in legal authority in any state. So here we are with a brigade of active duty troops and no legal mission, but they are training for a mission that would be illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances(suppressing civil unrest, i.e. acting as riot police). That seems to be a pretty significant waste of resources for a force that currently having difficulties completing the missions it has already been assigned. If their use is planned (which it obviously is, otherwise why are they there?) then it is clear that Bush intends to ignore the current law and deploy those troops without sufficient legal support.
Even in Katrina, there was no complete breakdown of authority - the authority still existed, it just couldn't extend its reach into certain areas due to the flooding. That happens on a regular basis and is not a situation where Federal intervention is necessary or warranted. Any intervention that is necessary is handled by the National Guard at the state level. There is no role whatsoever for a standing Federal force.
Since they are not covered by any of the exemptions in the Posse Comitatus Act, these troops can only act based on the Insurrection Act, which as of a few months ago once again requires that there be ... an insurrection, or a total breakdown in state legal authority. That would leave the brigade with no mission, since there is no insurrection and no breakdown in legal authority in any state.
Theirs more to the legal requirements then an "insurrection". If a condition, riots, insurrection, disease, what not, has occurred, and a portion of Americans are being denied rights or protections, and the state/local law enforcement agencies can't, or won't help those people AND as a result of this condition, insurrection, lawless violence and conspiracy exists, then federal troops can intervene.
It wasn't applicable during Katrina because state resources, the National Guard namely, were used to help control New Orleans, if the National Guard wasn't able to help for some reason, the Insurrection Act would have been applicable.
Does the Insurrection Act apply when the reason the National Guard can't help is because the Commander in Chief deployed them overseas?
I wonder how this ties into all those built, but empty, detention centers in Texas?
Theirs more to the legal requirements then an "insurrection". If a condition, riots, insurrection, disease, what not, has occurred, and a portion of Americans are being denied rights or protections, and the state/local law enforcement agencies can't, or won't help those people AND as a result of this condition, insurrection, lawless violence and conspiracy exists, then federal troops can intervene.
It wasn't applicable during Katrina because state resources, the National Guard namely, were used to help control New Orleans, if the National Guard wasn't able to help for some reason, the Insurrection Act would have been applicable.
Which is a situation that has not occurred in the last century.
Federal troops escorting black students to school in Little Rock. Wiki also notes that troops were used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
Also, reading about the history of posse comitatus, it strikes me that the law had nothing to do with protecting citizens from a all-powerful government and was instead a method of screwing over ex-slaves in southern states.
Also, reading about the history of posse comitatus, it strikes me that the law had nothing to do with protecting citizens from a all-powerful government and was instead a method of screwing over ex-slaves in southern states.
Interesting. I'll have to look it up myself. If true, it wouldn't be much different than the original gun control laws.
The Posse Comitatus Act was a direct response to the perceived effect of Federal troops posted at polling stations during the 1876 election. Those perceptions varied - some believed the soldiers were enforcing black voting rights, others believed they were intimidating voters. It was probably a little of both.
My historical knowledge here is limited to what wikipedia says. Maybe there's more to it.
People seem to be happy with the situation right now regarding keeping troops out of law enforcement, and it strikes me that this move is more about disaster relief than anything else. Having procedures and a command structure in place before a katrina-like situation is better than relying on ad hoc procedures like calling in the 82nd Airborne on a moments notice. Non-lethal training also implies to me a recognition that you need to train combat troops how to deal with rioters in a way different from the way they generally deal with threats.
My historical knowledge here is limited to what wikipedia says. Maybe there's more to it.
People seem to be happy with the situation right now regarding keeping troops out of law enforcement, and it strikes me that this move is more about disaster relief than anything else. Having procedures and a command structure in place before a katrina-like situation is better than relying on ad hoc procedures like calling in the 82nd Airborne on a moments notice. Non-lethal training also implies to me a recognition that you need to train combat troops how to deal with rioters in a way different from the way they generally deal with threats.
Irrespective of the practical argument, you have to admit that the timing of it is very interesting.
How, for instance, do you think it would influence the election to have federal troops policing streets in battleground states?
Ok, it's a situation that has occurred once in the last century.
EDIT: Ok, twice. Neither of which situation is applicable today. I need to do better research.
EDIT: ok, three times. Sigh.
EDIT: four times, apparently there were active duty troops at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.
I wonder how this ties into all those built, but empty, detention centers in Texas?
What exactly are you referring to? Are you talking about facilities like the one in Hutto, or is there a separate class of detention centers you're talking about?
My historical knowledge here is limited to what wikipedia says. Maybe there's more to it.
People seem to be happy with the situation right now regarding keeping troops out of law enforcement, and it strikes me that this move is more about disaster relief than anything else. Having procedures and a command structure in place before a katrina-like situation is better than relying on ad hoc procedures like calling in the 82nd Airborne on a moments notice. Non-lethal training also implies to me a recognition that you need to train combat troops how to deal with rioters in a way different from the way they generally deal with threats.
All of those procedures are already in place in normal Army training because of missions like Iraq, and there is of course already a command structure in place. No need to have a unit dedicated to the mission.
It really makes me wonder how bad they must think the fallout from the elections will be.
All of those procedures are already in place in normal Army training because of missions like Iraq, and there is of course already a command structure in place. No need to have a unit dedicated to the mission.
There is likely to be a considerable difference between rules of engagement and methods in Iraq and the continental United States. And naturally there's a reason to have a unit dedicated to the mission. It saves time in an emergency to know who is on tap to cover a mission, and it gives the head of US Army North assets to use in an emergency. The army is not a monolith, and any commander wants to have a unit assigned to a function rather than have to count of finding one available at the time it is to be employed.
These people will also be working and training together to prepare for the mission. If you can avoid it, you don't just look for and call up a unit one day tell them to hop on a plane to tackle a mission cold.
I am sorry, but what is one brigade going to do? They would be lucky to lock down Brooklyn with 5000 men, let along all of NYC.
Not that I put any credance into any of the whacko conspiracy theories, but what would the likely outcome of a coup d'etat in the US be? What *if* a group decided to kill off the duly elected president and half of congress and installed a dictator?
What would the American people do?
I suspect the answer would be that after a week of watching hippies get their heads blown off on national TV, we would suck it up and be sheep about it.
I'm not so sure on that ... I'll make the occasional comment about your typical American being complacent and whatnot but I have a gut feeling that there is a line that can be crossed. Maybe it is the nature of living in rural Georgia but I can see certain situations really backfiring for anybody with the chutzpah to try something. Armed rednecks driving large vehicles and itching to fire off their stockpiles does not strike me as something any government wants to try their hand at. I guess what I'm saying is that the South would rise again ... of that I am sure.
Paleocon wrote:Not that I put any credance into any of the whacko conspiracy theories, but what would the likely outcome of a coup d'etat in the US be? What *if* a group decided to kill off the duly elected president and half of congress and installed a dictator?
What would the American people do?
I suspect the answer would be that after a week of watching hippies get their heads blown off on national TV, we would suck it up and be sheep about it.
I'm not so sure on that ... I'll make the occasional comment about your typical American being complacent and whatnot but I have a gut feeling that there is a line that can be crossed. Maybe it is the nature of living in rural Georgia but I can see certain situations really backfiring for anybody with the chutzpah to try something. Armed rednecks driving large vehicles and itching to fire off their stockpiles does not strike me as something any government wants to try their hand at. I guess what I'm saying is that the South would rise again ... of that I am sure.
I think those same armed rednecks would be the exact folks that would be most easily fooled by the "necessity" of a coup d'etat. I doubt, seriously, that confederate flag flying backwoods hillbillies would take up arms against a military junta that just deposed the first black president.
On a brighter note, these guys have been sent packing by teenagers with twenty year-old ak's and pipe bombs for the better part of forty years. You lot are far better armed.
I look forward to the day when the First World collapses. I really, really do.
Pages