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...ardino-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 Cons utional Law expert, and the attorney informed him this is absolutely uncons utional. It’s NOT permitted under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 8 U.S.C. § 1385. It’s my understanding that the Cons utional 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. Cons ution. 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 uncons utional; 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 cir stances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Cons ution 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).
I love this dumb ing country.
o Orwellian culture! Big Brother is your friend.
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?
Thats disingenuous at best.
Thats a better question.This is happening in Cali of all places?
Is this paid for by federal funding, seeing as how Cali is almost bankrupt?
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?
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 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'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. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.
The Pentagon'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, 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 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 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 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 caused in 2005.
Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 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 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'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 and the libertarian Cato Ins ute 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'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."
Thats not what he said...
Oh... wait a minute.
It's happening on Bush's watch. You know, the guy that brought you the Patriot Act, tossed habeas corpus and all that.
Passed and renewed by Democrats.
Didn't extend it to enemy combatants, just like every war before this one.
And, all that.
then whats the point of payin fukn salarys to police then?
I'd say BacktoBull should learn to verify the reality of stories before passing off such propaganda.
First of all, the current text of the act reads:
Please show me where it says Marines!Whoever, except in cases and under cir stances expressly authorized by the Cons ution 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 le or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
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 lib ed pansy of propaganda.
Listen up you ing 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 ing clue as to what my views on any of it are because I didn't offer them.
You presumed I'm "bull " 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 lib s 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?
You ing ignorant bafoon. I passed on information unfounded or not. If you don't like what you read attack the source not me. I never ing 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 can you accuse me of being a "lib " when you have no basis of my opinion. I never took a stance I never preached it.
Again so it sinks into your little re ed head. "I NEVER OFFERED AN OPINION FOR YOU TO ATTACK". you are a narrowminded moron.
Assume and overreact much?
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.
No more than a police officer doing the same thing.
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.
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...
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.
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
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 sexual rights? Then accuse him of being a leftist got and full of ?
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.
it's funny that progressives were the ones that brought on prohibition.
Yeah, Progressives are funny, alright.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
