Posse comitatus coming to an end? - Page 3

BlueTrain · January 23, 2009, 10:22 AM

Anyone who has spent time in the service knows they will have no trouble finding things to do. But I think there is just as much danger of mission creep on the part of the civil police as there is with the army. Sometimes the civil police look too much like the military. After all, they have automatic weapons, helmets, and some departments even have armored vehicles.

In any event, there are already national law enforcement agencies that have been used locally, not that there are any possible uses that are not local in some sense of the word. The US Marshalls seem to be the ones in charge in such cases, usually reinforced by other agencies and, sometimes, the military.

I think it has been a mistake to use the National Guard so freely for overseas deployments. The idea behind integrating the National Guard and Reserve into deployment plans was to insure that operations had the backing of the general population, at least in theory. There might be a problem if the National Guard doesn't represent the general population, demographically speaking (if you follow me) but that's another story. But I don't think the present situation justifies such frequent deployments on the basis of an emergency, which is also another story.

I also believe there is justification for another component of our armed forces, being that of a "real" militia (yes, well regulated). I believe it should operate as a federal or national (if you don't like the word federal) force to free it from both the influence of governors and from the function of the National Guard.

I know there is already a local defence force, whatever it's called, apparently intended for guarding key local installations, but it appears there is a greater need for border and coast security, at least in places. Trouble is, not everyone believes that. Most people here seem to, but not in other places.

This militia would have to be locally recruited and ought to be armed with small arms. It would be part time, of course, and uniformed sufficiently for identification purposes. An auxilliary force, if you will. Arms would be not problem but no doubt recruiting would be.

Canada has such a force operating on it's northern frontier. Apparently the border isn't as clear as they would like and an active presence is necessary. Almost a novel idea. I can see it being employed along both the southern national border and along the southeast coast where supposedly a certain amount of smuggling goes on.

And you thought I was a liberal!

Tennessee Gentleman · January 23, 2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

The idea behind integrating the National Guard and Reserve into deployment plans was to insure that operations had the backing of the general population, at least in theory.

Bluetrain, actually the Guard and Reserves were always supposed to be in the role you describe. However, during Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson refused to activate them fearing loss of political support for the war resulting in the Guard and Reserve being a place to hide from the draft and the war with the regular Army being populated with "McNamara's 100,000" which was a disaster and almost ruined the force. GEN Creighton Abrams (the one the tank is named for) said "Never Again!" and developed the Total Force concept that insured that the next time America fought for a prolonged period the Guard and Reserve would have to be used and if the populace who supplied those soldiers grew tired of the war they would force the political leaders to end it. That happened and now we have a new President who will do just that.

As to the militia, if regulated by the proper elected officials and trained appropriately you could be right. What would not work is a mob with guns who might be as likely to violate our rights as preserve them.

BlueTrain · January 23, 2009, 12:08 PM

I agree that the Guard and reserves were places to go to evade the draft, which is not to say the draft was a bad idea (but a different subject). I served in both the regular army, as did my father and my son and my father-in-law and a few other relatives. In fact, one of my wife's first cousins was married to an Air Force general, who was on duty in the Pentagon on 9/11 as Inspector General of the Air Force. He happens to be an avid sportsman. But I digress.

I also served in the D.C. National Guard. One of the positive aspects of the draft was that it provided a broader cross section of the population, more or less, and also provided an incentive to actually join the guard or reserves. Whether that was all a Good Thing or not is subject to speculation.

A more active local defense militia is really something new and as far as I can think of, more closely related to Colonial militia or rangers than anything else. There may have been something similar active during WWII as a coastal watch but not exactly the same thing I have in mind. So having something like that again isn't so much a conservative idea as it is radical. Naturally the need or usefulness of such a thing would vary across the country and, to an extent, across any given state. I presume there is little need for border security in, say, Iowa. But the idea is to have something organized along military lines on a part time basis to act as an auxillary border patrol more than anything else. But military, not police and national, not state. Armed, not like the Civil Air Patrol. But local, not deployable elsewhere. Britain used to have units called fencibles during the Napoleonic War period that were home defense only, not for overseas use. But these would be strictly local, like the Home Guard.

It'll never fly, a well-regulated militia.

BlueTrain · January 23, 2009, 12:29 PM

A little internet research turned up the website for the Canadian Rangers, which is part of the Canadian Land Forces. It says they are issued a .303 Enfield and 200 rounds of ammuntion per year. Their issued uniform is apparently limited to a red sweatshirt and a baseball cap. How American! I don't know if I really think an active local militia is a good thing or if it's just because I like No. 4 Lee-Enfields. The Canadian Rangers is over 4,000 strong.

trekkie951 · January 23, 2009, 12:58 PM

We talk about this because we are unsure of what it actually means. some people wonder if its the actual start of tyranny while others feel its simply to be prepared for disasters. It could be either one, or both. If it WAS for any reason other than keeping civil peace then we wouldn't be told, and the gov't would want us to be asking the wrong questions like right now, asking what it is instead of what we should do about it. We can never be sure until when(if ever) the mask is ripped off a tyrant. The only thing we can really do besides talking about it on the internet is be ready for the day where we commit to a cause greater than ourselves.

P.S. If anyone has never heard about the REX-84 program, google it real quick

BlueTrain · January 23, 2009, 02:05 PM

My proposal for an active, armed local defense has nothing to do with protecting against tyranny but with border security, if there is such a thing. I think I am proposing something completely new (in this country), at least recently, though I have mentioned it on this forum before. In fact, the object of this new component is to provide something that is currently missing. However, trekkie951 may not have been referring to my post at all but to the original post.

trekkie951 · January 23, 2009, 03:29 PM

yes BlueTrain I was referring to the OP.

But in regards to the militia idea I think its great. I've actually thought about it also and talk it about it with my friends a lot (they mostly just listen haha). Though when I say it im thinking more along the lines of defending our town in a SHTF scenerio. But I think your idea with protecting important installations and the coastlines against smuggling is much more practical. Theres not much smuggling going on in upstate NY..that im worried about anyway.

BlueTrain · January 23, 2009, 04:41 PM

There is something called the Virginia Defense Force, which is certainly a low profile outfit. I couldn't tell if they are armed from their website but there strength is about 800. The main object appears to be to supplement the Virginia National Guard in the event of general mobilization and to guard important physical installations in the absence of other troops. It is generally along the lines I was suggesting, except that it is under state control, which may or may not make any difference.

Smuggling, you probably know, has a long and involved history in some parts of this and most other countries with a coastline.

January 23, 2009, 10:22 AM	#51
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Anyone who has spent time in the service knows they will have no trouble finding things to do. But I think there is just as much danger of mission creep on the part of the civil police as there is with the army. Sometimes the civil police look too much like the military. After all, they have automatic weapons, helmets, and some departments even have armored vehicles. In any event, there are already national law enforcement agencies that have been used locally, not that there are any possible uses that are not local in some sense of the word. The US Marshalls seem to be the ones in charge in such cases, usually reinforced by other agencies and, sometimes, the military. I think it has been a mistake to use the National Guard so freely for overseas deployments. The idea behind integrating the National Guard and Reserve into deployment plans was to insure that operations had the backing of the general population, at least in theory. There might be a problem if the National Guard doesn't represent the general population, demographically speaking (if you follow me) but that's another story. But I don't think the present situation justifies such frequent deployments on the basis of an emergency, which is also another story. I also believe there is justification for another component of our armed forces, being that of a "real" militia (yes, well regulated). I believe it should operate as a federal or national (if you don't like the word federal) force to free it from both the influence of governors and from the function of the National Guard. I know there is already a local defence force, whatever it's called, apparently intended for guarding key local installations, but it appears there is a greater need for border and coast security, at least in places. Trouble is, not everyone believes that. Most people here seem to, but not in other places. This militia would have to be locally recruited and ought to be armed with small arms. It would be part time, of course, and uniformed sufficiently for identification purposes. An auxilliary force, if you will. Arms would be not problem but no doubt recruiting would be. Canada has such a force operating on it's northern frontier. Apparently the border isn't as clear as they would like and an active presence is necessary. Almost a novel idea. I can see it being employed along both the southern national border and along the southeast coast where supposedly a certain amount of smuggling goes on. And you thought I was a liberal! __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 23, 2009, 12:08 PM	#53
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	I agree that the Guard and reserves were places to go to evade the draft, which is not to say the draft was a bad idea (but a different subject). I served in both the regular army, as did my father and my son and my father-in-law and a few other relatives. In fact, one of my wife's first cousins was married to an Air Force general, who was on duty in the Pentagon on 9/11 as Inspector General of the Air Force. He happens to be an avid sportsman. But I digress. I also served in the D.C. National Guard. One of the positive aspects of the draft was that it provided a broader cross section of the population, more or less, and also provided an incentive to actually join the guard or reserves. Whether that was all a Good Thing or not is subject to speculation. A more active local defense militia is really something new and as far as I can think of, more closely related to Colonial militia or rangers than anything else. There may have been something similar active during WWII as a coastal watch but not exactly the same thing I have in mind. So having something like that again isn't so much a conservative idea as it is radical. Naturally the need or usefulness of such a thing would vary across the country and, to an extent, across any given state. I presume there is little need for border security in, say, Iowa. But the idea is to have something organized along military lines on a part time basis to act as an auxillary border patrol more than anything else. But military, not police and national, not state. Armed, not like the Civil Air Patrol. But local, not deployable elsewhere. Britain used to have units called fencibles during the Napoleonic War period that were home defense only, not for overseas use. But these would be strictly local, like the Home Guard. It'll never fly, a well-regulated militia. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 23, 2009, 12:29 PM	#54
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	A little internet research turned up the website for the Canadian Rangers, which is part of the Canadian Land Forces. It says they are issued a .303 Enfield and 200 rounds of ammuntion per year. Their issued uniform is apparently limited to a red sweatshirt and a baseball cap. How American! I don't know if I really think an active local militia is a good thing or if it's just because I like No. 4 Lee-Enfields. The Canadian Rangers is over 4,000 strong. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 23, 2009, 02:05 PM	#56
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	My proposal for an active, armed local defense has nothing to do with protecting against tyranny but with border security, if there is such a thing. I think I am proposing something completely new (in this country), at least recently, though I have mentioned it on this forum before. In fact, the object of this new component is to provide something that is currently missing. However, trekkie951 may not have been referring to my post at all but to the original post. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 23, 2009, 04:41 PM	#58
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	There is something called the Virginia Defense Force, which is certainly a low profile outfit. I couldn't tell if they are armed from their website but there strength is about 800. The main object appears to be to supplement the Virginia National Guard in the event of general mobilization and to guard important physical installations in the absence of other troops. It is generally along the lines I was suggesting, except that it is under state control, which may or may not make any difference. Smuggling, you probably know, has a long and involved history in some parts of this and most other countries with a coastline. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 23, 2009, 12:58 PM	#55
trekkie951 Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 47	We talk about this because we are unsure of what it actually means. some people wonder if its the actual start of tyranny while others feel its simply to be prepared for disasters. It could be either one, or both. If it WAS for any reason other than keeping civil peace then we wouldn't be told, and the gov't would want us to be asking the wrong questions like right now, asking what it is instead of what we should do about it. We can never be sure until when(if ever) the mask is ripped off a tyrant. The only thing we can really do besides talking about it on the internet is be ready for the day where we commit to a cause greater than ourselves. P.S. If anyone has never heard about the REX-84 program, google it real quick

January 23, 2009, 03:29 PM	#57
trekkie951 Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 47	yes BlueTrain I was referring to the OP. But in regards to the militia idea I think its great. I've actually thought about it also and talk it about it with my friends a lot (they mostly just listen haha). Though when I say it im thinking more along the lines of defending our town in a SHTF scenerio. But I think your idea with protecting important installations and the coastlines against smuggling is much more practical. Theres not much smuggling going on in upstate NY..that im worried about anyway.