Domestic Militarization Comes to San Bernardino County

[BacktoBasics]

They'll probably arrest more people protesting than actual drunk drivers.


Domestic Militarization Comes to San Bernardino County

http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/domestic-militarization-comes-to-san-bernardino-county/

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. A violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Gary Daigneault discussed the ramifications of this joint effort today on his 107.7 F.M. Talk Back show. Mr. Daigneault and his callers seemed to be very concerned. On its face, one may think this is a good idea. But it’s not. I agree with Mr. Daigneault and his callers. Most of which seemed to think this is a very bad idea. Mr. Daigneault contacted a Constitutional Law expert, and the attorney informed him this is absolutely unconstitutional. It’s NOT permitted under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 8 U.S.C. § 1385. It’s my understanding that the Constitutional Law expert said CHP officers could be arrested out there working with the Military Police because it’s a “felony.”
Democracy depends upon abiding by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, I challenge anyone to go out there and put a citizens arrest of the CHP officers, then call 9-1-1 and have a sheriff come out and take charge of your prisoner. Just kidding, of course, but a very brazen citizen legally could attempt to such a thing. But don’t even think about it.

Many of his callers vocalized that this joint effort or mutual cooperation between the military and the CHP is going to be very intimidating. They (as I) are very concerned the CHP is going through with this action. It’s not really clear what the specific role of the Military Police will be… To assist; to observe; to train; to make a strong military presence; to take charge of military offenders detained by the CHP? Nonetheless, whatever, it’s unconstitutional; it’s a felony. I contacted the Morongo CHP office.* The dispatcher said the program will be in effect tonight. When I asked here were it was going to be, she said call back tonight after 7:00 P.M. But I politely protested, these DUI check stops are public. She said I have to speak with CHP Public Affairs officer after seven.* A call to the CHP Public Affairs Officer’s number* after seven got a recorded message to call from 9-5 during business hours. Query: why wasn’t I told that?

By the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 20 Stat. 152, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, it was provided that “it shall NOT (emphasis added) be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress… .” The effect of this prohibition, however, was largely nullified by a ruling of the Attorney General “that by Revised Statutes 5298 and 5300 <10 U.S.C. §§ 332, 334> the military forces, under the direction of the President, could be used to assist a marshal. 16 Ops. Atty. Gen. 162.” B. RICH, THE PRESIDENTS AND CIVIL DISORDER 196 n.21 (1941).

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~aiaa/oldsite/webgraphics/speedtrap.jpg

[DarkReign]

I love this dumb fucking country.

Hello Orwellian culture! Big Brother is your friend.

[Anti.Hero]

Is this the same domestic military thing Obama has promised?

This is happening in Cali of all places?


Is this paid for by federal funding, seeing as how Cali is almost bankrupt?

[DarkReign]

Is this the same domestic military thing Obama has promised?

Thats disingenuous at best.


This is happening in Cali of all places?


Is this paid for by federal funding, seeing as how Cali is almost bankrupt?

Thats a better question.

[Anti.Hero]

You stated big brother country as if it were a bad thing. Obama has himself mentioned he would like to have a form of domestic military. That's good though?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

This doesn't surprise me. I don't know if this was posted but:

Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 1, 2008; A01

The U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Defense?tid=informline)'s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Center+for+Strategic+and+International+Studies?tid =informline). But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.
The Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon?tid=informline)'s plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fort+Stewart?tid=informline), Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.
If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Army+National+Guard?tid=informline) and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.
Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Marine+Corps?tid=informline) activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.
In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.
In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Gordon+England?tid=informline) signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hurricane+Katrina?tid=informline) caused in 2005.
Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/FEMA?tid=informline) through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.
Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+Gates?tid=informline) ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.
Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.
Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Army+War+College?tid=informline)'s Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.
"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.
The American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/American+Civil+Liberties+Union?tid=informline) and the libertarian Cato Institute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Cato+Institute?tid=informline) are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."
McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement. For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992.
U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/3rd+Infantry+Division?tid=informline)'s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq. The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics.
The one-year domestic mission, however, does not replace the brigade's next scheduled combat deployment in 2010. The brigade may get additional time in the United States to rest and regroup, compared with other combat units, but it may also face more training and operational requirements depending on its homeland security assignments.
Renuart said the Pentagon is accounting for the strain of fighting two wars, and the need for troops to spend time with their families. "We want to make sure the parameters are right for Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. The 1st Brigade's soldiers "will have some very aggressive training, but will also be home for much of that."
Although some Pentagon leaders initially expected to build the next two response units around combat teams, they are likely to be drawn mainly from reserves and the National Guard, such as the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from South Carolina, which returned in May after more than a year in Afghanistan.
Now that Pentagon strategy gives new priority to homeland security and calls for heavier reliance on the Guard and reserves, McHale said, Washington has to figure out how to pay for it.
"It's one thing to decide upon a course of action, and it's something else to make it happen," he said. "It's time to put our money where our mouth is."

[DarkReign]

You stated big brother country as if it were a bad thing. Obama has himself mentioned he would like to have a form of domestic military. That's good though?

Thats not what he said...

Tt2yGzHfy7s

Oh... wait a minute.

[byrontx]

It's happening on Bush's watch. You know, the guy that brought you the Patriot Act, tossed habeas corpus and all that.

[Yonivore]

It's happening on Bush's watch. You know, the guy that brought you the Patriot Act,
Passed and renewed by Democrats.


...tossed habeas corpus...
Didn't extend it to enemy combatants, just like every war before this one.


...and all that.
And, all that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

then whats the point of payin fukn salarys to police then?

[Wild Cobra]

I'd say BacktoBullshit should learn to verify the reality of stories before passing off such propaganda.

First of all, the current text of the act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html) reads:


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.
Please show me where it says Marines!

Now even if you want to claim the Marines are included, then first find out if they are patrolling on areas that run through any bases. There is a landlocked Marine base in that area!

Please, verify your facts before exposing yourself as a libtarded pansy of propaganda.

[BacktoBasics]

I'd say BacktoBullshit should learn to verify the reality of stories before passing off such propaganda.

First of all, the current text of the act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html) reads:


Please show me where it says Marines!

Now even if you want to claim the Marines are included, then first find out if they are patrolling on areas that run through any bases. There is a landlocked Marine base in that area!

Please, verify your facts before exposing yourself as a libtarded pansy of propaganda.Listen up you fucking asshole. I passed on some information to be discussed openly on this forum and provided a source for the information. By discussion I mean pro's, con's or truths/untruths opinion and/or comments of the article . Never once did I pass this on to be taken as 100% pure fact and never once did I form an opinion based on it other than to comment on the fact that there will be protestors. I never gave a view or even an opinion. I never tried to pass this off as some kind of NWO propoganda. You haven't got a fucking clue as to what my views on any of it are because I didn't offer them.

You presumed I'm "bullshit" because you formed an opinion out of thin air.

So before you go around insulting people for their opinions which were clearly not offered you should verify what you read before spewing idiotic pointless unfounded worthless propaganda of your own.

[Wild Cobra]

Listen up you fucking asshole. I passed on some information to be discussed openly on this forum and provided a source for the information. By discussion I mean pro's, con's or truths/untruths opinion and/or comments of the article . Never once did I pass this on to be taken as 100% pure fact and never once did I form an opinion based on it other than to comment on the fact that there will be protestors. I never gave a view or even an opinion. I never tried to pass this off as some kind of NWO propoganda. You haven't got a fucking clue as to what my views on any of it are because I didn't offer them.

You presumed I'm "bullshit" because you formed an opinion out of thin air.

So before you go around insulting people for their opinions which were clearly not offered you should verify what you read before spewing idiotic pointless unfounded worthless propaganda of your own.
What can I say.

I'm tired of idiots buying into false news. If you libtards didn't create a demand for propaganda, the media would stop using it!

[DarkReign]

What can I say.

I'm tired of idiots buying into false news. If you libtards didn't create a demand for propaganda, the media would stop using it!

WTF ever, WC. So, youre cool with the military enforcing civilian law?

If its true, and the Marines are pulling Californians over for suspected DUI, you ave no problem with that?

[BacktoBasics]

What can I say.

I'm tired of idiots buying into false news. If you libtards didn't create a demand for propaganda, the media would stop using it!
You fucking ignorant bafoon. I passed on information unfounded or not. If you don't like what you read attack the source not me. I never fucking agreed or disagreed with it. Thats why I posted it you jackass. I wanted additional opinions before forming my own. I haven't got the slightest clue if the source is valid one way or the other.

How in the fuck can you accuse me of being a "libtard" when you have no basis of my opinion. I never took a stance I never preached it.

Again so it sinks into your little retarded head. "I NEVER OFFERED AN OPINION FOR YOU TO ATTACK". Fuck you are a narrowminded moron.

Assume and overreact much?

[Wild Cobra]

WTF ever, WC. So, youre cool with the military enforcing civilian law?

I have few concerns with the military police augmenting our civil law enforcement on an as needed basis. Not just for anything. Besides, there is nothing wrong with them patrolling areas of highways that run through military bases.



If its true, and the Marines are pulling Californians over for suspected DUI, you ave no problem with that?

No more than a police officer doing the same thing.

[byrontx]

Passed and renewed by Democrats.

So? It is still Bush that delivered on "Big government."

Didn't extend it to enemy combatants, just like every war before this one.

Padilla.


And, all that.

Under Bush's watch the federal government expanded, individual rights were curtailed and the feds were aggressive in limiting states rights/efforts in areas like pollution abatement and other initiatives.

The Republicans may talk small government but they deliver on the worse forms of big government.

And that's that.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

since when did we move to mexico?...
just like when you go past the border checkpoint on the other side and home boy from the fedrales points a semi-automatic at you...soon we'll be a banana republic...

[Wild Cobra]

How in the fuck can you accuse me of being a "libtard" when you have no basis of my opinion. I never took a stance I never preached it.

Again so it sinks into your little retarded head. "I NEVER OFFERED AN OPINION FOR YOU TO ATTACK". Fuck you are a narrowminded moron.

That's right. You seldom voice an opinion here. You normally keep an unbiased dialog. Must be that car salesman in you, learned how not to offend people. However, there have been times your liberal bias has shown through.

Maybe I shouldn't have gone to attack mode, but maybe it's because of the way I've seen you fired up before. Look at you now. You appear to have lost control.

Seriously however, I am tired of stories being brought into discussion that have no merit as presented. Especially when they involve my brothers in the military.

As long as I have been a member of this board, I have on occasion insisted that people verify the accuracy of their information. Opinions said as such are another matter, but when you present a story with no indication of your belief in it, it is safe to assume you brought the story up, because you agree with it. Hence, verify.

[DarrinS]

Does California really have this bad of a DUI problem? Heck, the last time I was there, I couldn't even find a place to light up without getting attacked by second-hand-smoke Nazi's.

[Yonivore]

Does California really have this bad of a DUI problem? Heck, the last time I was there, I couldn't even find a place to light up without getting attacked by second-hand-smoke Nazi's.
Well, anti-smoking is a lib cause...Drinking is still acceptable

[BacktoBasics]

That's right. You seldom voice an opinion here. You normally keep an unbiased dialog. Must be that car salesman in you, learned how not to offend people. However, there have been times your liberal bias has shown through.

Maybe I shouldn't have gone to attack mode, but maybe it's because of the way I've seen you fired up before. Look at you now. You appear to have lost control.

Seriously however, I am tired of stories being brought into discussion that have no merit as presented. Especially when they involve my brothers in the military.

As long as I have been a member of this board, I have on occasion insisted that people verify the accuracy of their information. Opinions said as such are another matter, but when you present a story with no indication of your belief in it, it is safe to assume you brought the story up, because you agree with it. Hence, verify.I don't think its safe to assume that at all. I think its highly irresponsible. Assumptions have not only cost this country lives but the ramifications are endless. Lets hope you don't read too far into my last line or I'll be accused of being a 9/11 truther next. I don't need to verify it because I haven't passed it off as fact. I only passed it off to discuss while remaining neutral until I formed my own opinion. I cited the source if you want to attack the validity of the article please do so.

I guess you've never heard the line "don't shoot the messenger".

If Manny posts an article about a Transgender March and states

"People will protest should prove interesting. Discuss".

You would assume he's a supporter of homosexual rights? Then accuse him of being a leftist faggot and full of shit?

I've hardly lost it. I unlike you am making my argument on my behalf based on point with legitimate reference to the lack of stance I took. Using bad language or insulting you because you falsely accused me doesn't equate to losing it. If anyone lost it you did when you formed a biased opinion and hurled the first insult with absolutely no found basis for you point.

Apology accepted.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Drinking is still acceptable
it's funny that progressives were the ones that brought on prohibition.

[Yonivore]

it's funny that progressives were the ones that brought on prohibition.
Yeah, Progressives are funny, alright.

[Winehole23]

Please show me where it says Marines!"Department of Defense (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Defense) (DoD) Directive 5525.5 extended the PCA to the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act


Now even if you want to claim the Marines are included, then first find out if they are patrolling on areas that run through any bases. There is a landlocked Marine base in that area!Seems to me the government should show the exigency here. If the patrolled area is a military base, the matter is federal; if the roadway is public, enforcement should be a civil matter. Period. Unless there is some kind of emergency that compromises the civil power, the use of regular armed forces for LE is totally inappropriate.

The only exception to the rule is the Coast Guard, or specific provisions of law.



Please, verify your facts before exposing yourself as a libtarded pansy of propaganda.Turn it around on yourself, WC. If you demanded the same of yourself as you do of others, you wouldn't have abused B2B needlessly, while making such an ass of yourself.

It took me about 30 seconds to debunk you, but you could have spared everyone the trouble if you weren't so two-faced about verification. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

"Department of Defense (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Defense) (DoD) Directive 5525.5 extended the PCA to the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act

Yes, I know there is such a directive. However, it IS NOT the Posse Comitatus Act as said by the article in post #1. Besides, DOD Directive 5525.5 specifically says:

Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for DoD assistance in civilian law enforcement functions shall be forwarded to the appropriate approval authority under the guidance in this section.
The approving authority is not congress, but at a far lower level.


Seems to me the government should show the exigency here. If the patrolled area is a military base, the matter is federal; if the roadway is public, enforcement should be a civil matter. Period. Unless there is some kind of emergency that compromises the civil power, the use of regular armed forces for LE is totally inappropriate.

Opinion does not dictate what they can do by law.



The only exception to the rule is the Coast Guard, or specific provisions of law.

That exception is misunderstood. The Coast Guards mission is law enforcement of the USA waters! That does not make them the only exception.



Turn it around on yourself, WC. If you demanded the same of yourself as you do of others, you wouldn't have abused B2B needlessly, while making such an ass of yourself.

It took me about 30 seconds to debunk you, but you could have spared everyone the trouble if you weren't so two-faced about verification. :rolleyes

You didn't debunk anything. I already knew the above stated facts before I posted such an accusation. I know better than having such a think flipped back to me.

[Winehole23]

Opinion does not dictate what they can do by law. I suppose much rides on how the words "direct participation" are glossed. If the military offers technical or logistical assistance to LE, it clearly falls short of executing law; if it arrests and detains, this is less clear.

In any case, even if it isn't illegal, it certainly is unusual. It is untraditional and contrary to well-established American custom. It is arguably unnecessary and it might even be unwise. Just because the law allows it, doesn't mean it's good policy.

Do you think it is, WC? Why do we need the US Marines to interdict drunk drivers?



You didn't debunk anything. I already knew the above stated facts before I posted such an accusation. I know better than having such a think flipped back to me.Odd. Every time it seems you're mistaken, you were only being coy. I'm beginning to wonder if you're even human, WC. You never make a mistake.

You seem certain that Posse Comitatus is not controlling. By the plain words of the act it would appear to be.

What support do you have for the counterargument, since your appeal to the language of the statute has failed? Is your argument really that the approving authority of the DoD reg trumps the act of Congress?

[Winehole23]

The theme I dislike here is the militarization of LE, against US citizens. I consider it third-worldish and un-American, but each to his own taste.

In St. Paul, the law is characterized as a curse, as a cradle of sin and wickedness. We compound sin by erring in the punishment of sins.

[Anti.Hero]

Cali is infested with illegals, yet they need military to help with DUI LOL

What a crazy world we live in.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think it is, WC? Why do we need the US Marines to interdict drunk drivers?

No, I don't think we need to. I also don't know why they are asking for the help. There might be too small of a police force with California's financial crisis. I was never supporting the idea, just that the article in posting #1 was blatantly wrong.


Odd. Every time it seems you're mistaken, you were only being coy. I'm beginning to wonder if you're even human, WC. You never make a mistake.

I make plenty of mistakes. I just usually catch them before someone else does.



You seem certain that Posse Comitatus is not controlling. By the plain words of the act it would appear to be.

The black and white specifies Army and Air Force. It doesn't say military.



What support do you have for the counterargument, since your appeal to the language of the statute has failed? Is your argument really that the approving authority of the DoD reg trumps the act of Congress?

How do my points fail? The Posse Comitatus Act applies only to the Air Force and Army. DoD Regulations also keep the Navy and Marines from engaging in normal law enforcement activities without the appropriate approval. However, for the Army or Air Force to get involved, that must be approved by congress. At some level below, I believe a general or flag officer, is all that's required for the Marines or Navy to get involved.

Again, how was I wrong?

[Winehole23]

No, I don't think we need to.Good. Then we agree the policy is bad.


I also don't know why they are asking for the help. There might be too small of a police force with California's financial crisis. What's the civil exigency again? So you agree there must be one? And is it really so clear in this case?

Obviously, you can't have the armed forces serving at the whim of local authorities. There must be some good reason. This would seem to be lacking in the disclosed situation.


I was never supporting the idea, just that the article in posting #1 was blatantly wrong.What please, was blatantly wrong? US Marines are subject to Posse Comitatus. That DoD regulation makes it so is a hypertechnicality.


How do my points fail? The Posse Comitatus Act applies only to the Air Force and Army.

At some level below, I believe a general or flag officer, is all that's required for the Marines or Navy to get involved.

Again, how was I wrong?If the regulation includes the statute, whatever it regulates is subsumed by the law; the regulation is also so subsumed, unless it treats the law as a buffet line.

If the regulation includes the law, the law governs, verdad? Surely the regulatory effect of saying the Marines are subject to Posse Comitatus, means they must obey the law, and not the reverse?

[Wild Cobra]

So if LE requests military assistance, for any reason at all, it should be promptly rendered? Absurd. You can't have the armed forces at the beck and call of local authorities.

I never said it should. I don't claim to know why it's being done. I can only make guesses. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn’t.

Why are you making such assumptions?



What please, was blatantly wrong?

Did you read the quoted material?

It falsely said this was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which only addresses the Army and the Air Force.

How many times must I point this out?

The article goes on to say:


Mr. Daigneault contacted a Constitutional Law expert, and the attorney informed him this is absolutely unconstitutional. It’s NOT permitted under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 8 U.S.C. § 1385. It’s my understanding that the Constitutional Law expert said CHP officers could be arrested out there working with the Military Police because it’s a “felony.”

Well, at least we know this attorney shouldn't be practicing law. For that matter, we can see that Wordpress dot com has no integrity for not verifying facts before publishing. I guess that’s why Bloggers get a bad name.

Don't you get my complaint?

It's against repeating lies, rumors, and propaganda. Being a willing accomplice to it.

Don’t you think it’s a stupid thing to repeat someone else’s material without knowing its validity?



If the regulation includes the statute, whatever it regulates is subsumed by the law; the regulation is also so subsumed, unless it treats the law as a buffet line.

I’m not sure I follow you. The statute is mentioned, but it isn’t being applied to all military branches. How are you assuming that?

The Posse Comitatus Act only includes two branches of the service. It has been updated since it’s conception, and both the Navy and Marines are older branches than the Air Force. If they were meant to be included, don’t you think they would have been named? Now the DoD, noting that their was nothing addressing this for the Nave and Marines developed a regulation that covered several different circumstances. The regulation does not say all branches fall under the Posse Comitatus Act, and I quoted the paragraph that allows the use of the military.



If the regulation includes the law, the law governs, verdad? Surely the regulatory effect of saying the Marines are subject to Posse Comitatus, means they must obey the law, and not the reverse?

No. If I am wrong, please show me.

The way I read the regulation, it places limitations of usage of military personnel and equipment nationally, but it does not tie the Navy and Marines to the tighter standards of the Posse Comitatus Act. Just a looser version of it.

Did you know that DoD Directive No. 5525.5 (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5525_5.pdf) is titled "DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials?"

Here's the first two paragraphs:


1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive reissues reference (a) to update uniform DoD policies and procedures to be followed with respect to support provided to Federal, State, and local civilian law enforcement efforts; and assigns responsibilities.

2. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

2.1. This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OJCS), the Unified and Specified Commands, and the Defense Agencies (hereafter referred to collectively as DoD Components). The term "Military Service," as used herein, refers to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

This directive allows the military to help civilian authorities, but not in manners that violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which is referenced as the primary hinderance:


E4.1.1. Posse Comitatus Act. The primary restriction on military participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act (reference (v)), which provides:

"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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both."

[Winehole23]

No. If I am wrong, please show me.

The way I read the regulation, it places limitations of usage of military personnel and equipment nationally, but it does not tie the Navy and Marines to the tighter standards of the Posse Comitatus Act. Just a looser version of it.I see no "looser version" of Posse Comitatus in your post, but instead a verbatim restatement. Your denial is threadbare.

The primary restriction in the regulation is the PCA. The circumstances must be "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."

The statute binds the regulation.

You lose, Wild Cobra.

[Winehole23]

Mr. Daigneault contacted a Constitutional Law expert, and the attorney informed him this is absolutely unconstitutional. It’s NOT permitted under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 8 U.S.C. § 1385. It’s my understanding that the Constitutional Law expert said CHP officers could be arrested out there working with the Military Police because it’s a “felony.”
Well, at least we know this attorney shouldn't be practicing law. For that matter, we can see that Wordpress dot com has no integrity for not verifying facts before publishing. I guess that’s why Bloggers get a bad name.

Don't you get my complaint?

It's against repeating lies, rumors, and propaganda. Being a willing accomplice to it. The characterization of military assistance to LE for DUI checkpoints as felonious is simplistic and overdrawn. Is it a lie? Probably not. Posse Comitatus still applies to the US Marines, and it is imaginable, though not very likely at present, that the political will to prosecute could somehow find standing.

Whether the disclosed collaboration is felonious strikes me as a legal question, and whether things ever get that far is a political one. The facts in the posted are solid, it's conclusions, not so much. Whether that makes it propaganda or merely erroneous is a matter of opinion.

To be a lie, there must be a demonstrated intent to deceive. All you have shown is that you disagree with the article's interpretation of the facts. The underlying facts are solid enough. Even though the interpretation is almost surely amiss, calling it a lie is overblown. Just because someone disagrees with Wild Cobra doesn't make him dishonorable and a liar.


Don’t you think it’s a stupid thing to repeat someone else’s material without knowing its validity?I guess so. Who has done so here? You jumped all over B2B for posting it, but he did not defend it. You say the burden was on him to verify the content of his post, but your own verification was flawed.

The Marines fall under Posse Comitatus even thought they are not mentioned there. Your insistance that the article and everybody else in the thread are factually wrong rests on a hypertechnicality: the DoD reg that gives effect to the statute.

The result is just the same as if the PCA included the Marines all along. The regulation appears to have the same effect as the law, so it's a distinction without a difference.

[BacktoBasics]

I don't think its stupid to repeat someone else's material without verification in a discussion forum. We are all here for other peoples opinions aren't we? Like stated above you have an argument if I defend an article that turns out the be invalid but to simply dismiss any article, text or media without proper validation is counter productive to say the least. If I post that the sky is green to defend my argument then feel free to attack it with applicable facts to the contrary.

Most threads can be argued one way or another. Hell laws are argued on both sides every day in the court system. Rarely is life perfectly black and white. This is why boards like this thrive.

All you had to do was make an argument and take a stance while backing it up with solid provable facts and the discussion would have been a lot more productive. Instead you acted like a child and went off the deep end. You lost all credibility when you started blindly accusing people. How ironic that your argument about validating a point is littered with unfounded accusations and unneccesary insults directed at me.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not wasting anymore time on the topic. At least I stopped some propaganda in it's tracks.

[Winehole23]

I'm not wasting anymore time on the topic. At least I stopped some propaganda in it's tracks.People can judge for themselves whether your contribution was wasted.

And I see nobody who was fooled by the "propaganda", despite your eagerness to impute it to everybody else.

Like it or not, it's distinctively American to keep LE and military separate, and entirely normal and apropos to be concerned about mixing the two. Upholding the settled customs and traditions of the land don't make you a tin-hatter, and it doesn't mean you've succumbed to propaganda. It only means you're conservative and patriotic.

Thing is, conservatives don't have the foggiest what they're supposed to conserve anymore. The Constitution and American traditions would be a good start.

[Oh, Gee!!]

At least I stopped some propaganda in it's tracks.

you're so unintentionally funny that it hurts. :lol

[The Reckoning]

lol its ironic how people bitch when the troops are overseas and then bitch when the troops come home (and give us traffic tickets).

[BacktoBasics]

lol its ironic how people bitch when the troops are overseas and then bitch when the troops come home (and give us traffic tickets).No shit if only they would stick to just Trooping we'd all be happy.

[DarkReign]

No shit if only they would stick to just Trooping we'd all be happy.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/98/583898/1/63713939.VPwOC7GO.rimshot.gif

[Blake]

I'd say BacktoBullshit should learn to verify the reality of stories before passing off such propaganda.

First of all, the current text of the act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html) reads:


Please show me where it says Marines!

Now even if you want to claim the Marines are included, then first find out if they are patrolling on areas that run through any bases. There is a landlocked Marine base in that area!

Please, verify your facts before exposing yourself as a libtarded pansy of propaganda.

holy cow

anyone ever see that SNL skit where Andy Sandberg would jump out and punch unsuspecting people in the face right before they were going to eat their sandwich?

[Winehole23]

The sucker punch is Wild Cobra's speciality. The blunderbuss is his assistant manager.

[Wild Cobra]

The sucker punch is Wild Cobra's speciality. The blunderbuss is his assistant manager.
You complain about my attacking B2B, then what do you do...

Face it. You lost, now you're bitter.

[Winehole23]

You complain about my attacking B2B, then what do you do...Very well then, I contradict myself. It was worth it. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

Anyway, what I objected to regarding your abuse of B2B was its gratuitousness. In your own case, it seems well earned. Live by the sword die by the sword. You preach water, but were drinking wine all along.


Face it. You lost, now you're bitter.On the contrary, it's Miller time. Time to enjoy my leisure.

Prosit!:toast

[Blake]

You complain about my attacking B2B, then what do you do...

Face it. You lost, now you're bitter.

he complained about you attacking B2B because you had no reason too.

I have every reason to call you a jackass.