Domestic Militarization Comes to San Bernardino County

[Winehole23]

Please show me where it says Marines!

"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..._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 lib ed 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.

[Wild Cobra]

"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..._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.

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 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.”

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 cir stances. 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 is led "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 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 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 cir stances must be "expressly authorized by the Cons ution or Act of Congress."

The statute binds the regulation.

You lose, Wild Cobra.

[Winehole23]

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.”

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. 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 suc bed 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 Cons ution 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.

[The Reckoning]

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

[BacktoBasics]

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

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

[DarkReign]

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

[Blake]

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!

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.

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!

[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.