Violation of Posse Comitatus... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 10-24-2009, 04:28 AM

Interesting story, guess in the quest to be a "good neighbour".. did not know about Posse Comitatus.. where were the Oath Keepers and 3%'ers????

Troop use After Ala. Shootings Illegal

Quote:

An Army report released to The Associated Press on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request said the decision to dispatch military police to Samson from nearby Fort Rucker broke the law. But an Army spokesman said no charges have been filed following the Aug. 10 report.

"As a result of the findings of the report, the Army took administrative action against at least one person," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said.

The action was less than a transfer or discharge but Garver would not elaborate.

The report from the Department of Army Inspector General found the use of military personnel in Samson violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from performing law enforcement actions. The names of those involved were redacted from the report.

The officer who made the decision to send the Soldiers thought he had the authority based on his experience with responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew, the report said.

efin98 · 10-24-2009, 07:20 AM

Wasn't only the Army that goofed...locals didn't know the Army couldn't send help legally:

Quote:

The report said troops were dispatched after the Geneva County Sheriff's Office and Samson Police requested assistance from Fort Rucker to relieve law enforcement at traffic check points around the crime scene area.

And the reference to their use after Katrina is misleading and misunderstood by the MP, when they acted in Katrina they were either deputized by the state or they were deployed under the Insurrection Act.

sdaniels7114 · 10-24-2009, 07:38 AM

If the law requires someone be punished for this act of assistance, the law is wrong.

Its not 1780 anymore. The Army isn't going to rise up against us.

***DarrylS*** · 10-24-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

If the law requires someone be punished for this act of assistance, the law is wrong.

Its not 1780 anymore. The Army isn't going to rise up against us.

Can never agree to overturn this, it could be our worse fear... the Posse Comitatus is as valid now as it was then.

***Wolfpack*** · 10-24-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

If the law requires someone be punished for this act of assistance, the law is wrong.

Its not 1780 anymore. The Army isn't going to rise up against us.

I agree with this.

efin98 · 10-24-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

If the law requires someone be punished for this act of assistance, the law is wrong.

Its not 1780 anymore. The Army isn't going to rise up against us.

Law is from 1870s during the end of Reconstruction used as a crutch to force the feds to stop making the south allow the former slaves their rights to vote and represent them in Congress...the racist reasons why the law was put in place originally is lost on so many unfortunately.

***DarrylS*** · 10-25-2009, 04:36 AM

The separation of the civilians from the military role, is about as sacred as the separation of church and state... the national guard is available and a whole right wing movement emerging over the fear of this changing..

If you have the military coming in to patrol our streets in a time of need, bad things can happen..

efin98 · 10-25-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

The separation of the civilians from the military role, is about as sacred as the separation of church and state... the national guard is available and a whole right wing movement emerging over the fear of this changing..

If you have the military coming in to patrol our streets in a time of need, bad things can happen..

Read the history behind the law then continue to cry foul over it. You would be horrified if you really understood the real reasons why.

Funny that they invoked the law that was existing 70 years before that law to stop violence and secure freedom and rights for a race of people that were denied their rights as a direct result of this law getting put in place in the first place

***DarrylS*** · 10-25-2009, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by efin98

Read the history behind the law then continue to cry foul over it. You would be horrified if you really understood the real reasons why.

Funny that they invoked the law that was existing 70 years before that law to stop violence and secure freedom and rights for a race of people that were denied their rights as a direct result of this law getting put in place in the first place

Not crying foul, no need to rolleyes and the rest of the crap...

Using the military for law enforcement functions is not a wise thing to do, first of all they are not trained to do so and second of all it can lead to a whole bunch of unintended consequences... consider Abu Ghraib, they sent over a bunch of National Guardsman who knew nothing about prison operations and look what happened... In Waco they sent in all kinds of troops look what happened.. Kent State,nuf said.. Soldiers are trained to fight wars and enemies, not patrol civilian streets and take up arms against civilians and their neighbors... it minmizes and devalues law enforcement professionals and their training...

It is not about history, just think it is a bad idea... that may change, but right now do not think there is any value to change this law.. can you imagine if it was, some crackpot politician saying there is a need to call in the Army and then there is not...

Personally it is a very clear boundary, that should never get muddled except in the most extreme situation... cannot imagine what that might be, but would have to be a biggie...

Patsfanin Philly · 10-25-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Not crying foul, no need to rolleyes and the rest of the crap...

Using the military for law enforcement functions is not a wise thing to do, first of all they are not trained to do so and second of all it can lead to a whole bunch of unintended consequences... consider Abu Ghraib, they sent over a bunch of National Guardsman who knew nothing about prison operations and look what happened... In Waco they sent in all kinds of troops look what happened.. Kent State,nuf said.. Soldiers are trained to fight wars and enemies, not patrol civilian streets and take up arms against civilians and their neighbors... it minmizes and devalues law enforcement professionals and their training...

It is not about history, just think it is a bad idea... that may change, but right now do not think there is any value to change this law.. can you imagine if it was, some crackpot politician saying there is a need to call in the Army and then there is not...

Personally it is a very clear boundary, that should never get muddled except in the most extreme situation... cannot imagine what that might be, but would have to be a biggie...

Absolutely. Even if the law enacted for a nefarious purpose it has served this country well in the last 140 years, minimizing the risk of a coup d'etat or a military that would infringe on our constitutional rights. I can think of only one time when the Army was used for law enforcement against the National Guard and that was Little Rock 1957 when Ike federalized the Arkansas National Guard to ensure integration of the high school and compliance with a court order. When you have to go back 50 plus years to find an example, you know the law is working.
FWIW, in Waco I think it was ATF and FBI Hostage Rescue Team and not the military