|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 1, 2008, 11:35 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Posse comitatus coming to an end?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
December 1, 2008, 12:10 PM | #2 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
A kind of adventurous sort myself... I know that 20,000 soldiers without something to occupy their time are gonna find something to do My first thought when hearing of this was a different term but "mission creep" suits better here on TFL!
Brent |
December 1, 2008, 12:12 PM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
IBTL.
Some pretty heavy extrapolation to go from NBC response duties to door-to-door gun seizure due to a particular administration's political leanings. For the record though, I do favor State/National Guard forces being prepared for these duties, and recalled from abroad. Send the 20K federal armed forces personnel to Iraq/Afghanistan to replace 20K National Guardsmen that are stationed over there. I would appreciate Federal training standards being adopted, State/NatGuard forces being trained, and mobilization authority in the hands of Governors. No New Jersey army recruits in Arizona please... I want Arizona guardsmen responding to Arizona emergencies. |
December 1, 2008, 12:15 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2004
Location: Somewhere south of the No
Posts: 3,824
|
I hope all of these troops get stationed along the Mexican border right after the mined 100 yard wide "no-mans" land (I've been advocating for years) gets constructed.That's where we need American troops.
And for those who aren't sure..... Quote:
__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." --American author Mark Twain (1835-1910) Last edited by Te Anau; December 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM. |
|
December 1, 2008, 12:29 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Exactly- there was a question here a week or so ago about how the President could use an EO to enforce a gun ban. Once congress authorizes the President to use military forces for domestic law enforcement, an EO would then be able to direct those forces to do whatever law enforcement duties the President sees fit. That to me is dangerous, no matter who the president is.
Edited to add: According to the article, the first unit is a unit from Fort Stewart. Fort Stewart houses the 3rd Infantry Division. That is hardly a unit that specializes in recovery and rescue.
__________________
Caveat Emperor Last edited by divemedic; December 1, 2008 at 04:22 PM. |
December 1, 2008, 09:21 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2007
Location: Apache Junction, Az
Posts: 308
|
Quote:
|
|
December 1, 2008, 10:25 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
This is a good read about the act and why it might be used to good effect today: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
December 2, 2008, 07:55 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Of course it is a statutory creation, but that certainly does not mean that it will not be circumvented. Which, by the way, is the exact thing the anti-federalists were worried about, and the reason why this country was not meant to have a standing army.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
December 2, 2008, 11:51 AM | #9 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I think it would be wise, when talking of Posse Comitatus, to look at what the Constitution says. After all, no mere statute can be more powerful than the document which is the supreme law.
In Article I, section 8, clause 15, we find: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" The part I highlighted gives the Congress the authority to use the militia as a Federal police force. Since we all accept at face value, that the standing Army is part and parcel of the greater Militia, then it should pose no problem to anyone if the Congress decides to use the Army in such a manner. This doesn't mean that the Army can supplant the local police, as theoretically, that authority does not exist (there is no general grant of police power to the Federal Government anywhere in the Constitution), except under such conditions that might require a declaration of martial law, either by the State or the Federal Government. Such conditions might very well exist after a highly co-ordinated terrorist attack using CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack), as the article indicated. Given what the terrorists wish for the U.S., it would be prudent to advance a response to such an incident. After Katrina and the lack-luster response of FEMA, it would be stupid not to plan and implement such a response. |
December 2, 2008, 12:05 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Good response Al,
Historically IIRC Posse Comitatus came about during the Reconstruction and the abuses that followed along with the administration of martial law in the southern states. IIRC as well Rutherford Hayes cut a deal with the southern democrats to pull out the union troops and military governments if they would support his election in which he lost the popular vote to Tilden. This was called the Compromise of 1877 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877. I think this is the true root of the Posse Comitatus Act. Again, context with history is everything.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
December 2, 2008, 12:59 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Good point, except that the founders never planned on the nation having a standing army, and in fact were opposed to such a force. The militia was always intended to be used on a temporary basis. The Army is no more the militia than the National Guard is. (The National guard is actually more like the Army reserve.) The unit that is on standby is a Brigade Combat Team, no more effective against a handful of terrorists than a modern police SWAT team. How is an Armored Cavalry Brigade going to combat a dozen terrorists? I would more buy this if a logistical brigade were the unit in question.
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.- Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Member of the Constitutional Convention - spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. .... all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided. Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794) Founding Father
__________________
Caveat Emperor Last edited by divemedic; December 2, 2008 at 01:07 PM. |
December 2, 2008, 01:31 PM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are certain things, we simply should not fall back on.
One of those are the views of the Founders in regards to a standing Army, given the world today. You can not seriously expect the U.S. to survive in todays political and economic climate, if we relied solely upon the isolationist theories of the Founders. We are far too dependent upon the rest of the world to not have a standing Army. Has our Armies been abused? Yes. Yet they are still necessary in these times. Like it or not, we are a (if not the) world power. The genie will not be put back into the bottle. Consider the following 2 quotes: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) Justice Story foresaw the probable direction that our nation would turn to. His worries have been vindicated, it seems. You want the kind and type of militia that the Founders wanted? Then get busy and get your State legislatures to correct the problem. For, it is by their action or inaction, that we find ourselves in the state we are today. I'm afraid however, that what Justice Story foretold, is the state of the average citizen today. They see no reason and cannot be bothered. |
December 2, 2008, 02:00 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Quote:
|
|
December 2, 2008, 02:13 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
The American people have never IMO liked the military. They don't like living the life and after 21 years of it, I can see their point, they'd rather be golfing and making money.
I don't think we are a militaristic nation culturally like say, the Germans, and so my reading tells me that the unorganized militia was really designed to get people out of serving. Witness the all-volunteer military today. We have a standing army and will always have one in perpetuity. And I think the police departments will get more professional AND military minded as well. Is that bad? I don't know but it is the way it is.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
December 2, 2008, 03:35 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
I submit that it is a self reinforcing cycle: We need a military because we are constantly using that military to enforce our will on other nations.
I can only think of one war in the last 60 years that was one of defense. The rest of them were preemptive attacks against nations that would not have invaded or attacked us. There are 90 million gun owners in this country. If we were invaded, any invading army would have their hands full, especially if we as citizen militia members owned the most up to date arms, as our founders did. Problem is, the militia has been disarmed in favor of a standing army. You claim the militia system doesn't work, but I would point out that Switzerland has not been at war since 1815.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
December 2, 2008, 04:55 PM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
December 2, 2008, 05:50 PM | #17 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Quote:
Seems to do alright for Mexico and Canada, too. I have serious contentions with anyone who things the PRIMARY function of the US Government is to safeguard our status as the pre-eminent economic superpower of the world. While the Constitution does empower Congress with certain powers to regulate the US economy, Congress has never been deliberately tasked with such duties as regulating interest rates for the mortgage industry or babysitting the daily fluxuation of the DJIA or the seasonal shifts in the values of commodities. Read those founding documents. You won't find a lot of concern over trade route maintenance, reciprocal tarriffs, unpredictable values for shares of stock, commodity price fixing or equal opportunity loans. What you will find is complaints against Imperial governments that use their military force to coerce remote subjects into participating in an economic scheme they otherwise would avoid. ETA: I have no problem with having the biggest, baddest most nukular guns on the block. Teach our soldiers to use 'em well and drill them to blow attackers straight to H-E-doublehockeysticks. Big ships, big bombs, fast planes, invisible subs, all that stuff. Heck, even patrol international waters and use those cool nukular guns on pirates and their ilk. Every nation should do a bit of deep sea fishing using pirate chum for bait. Big nukular guns keep China, Russia, or the threat of the day off our back. Yay. I understand that a bunch of hunters with .30-06 Model 70 Winchesters may not get the same point across. I've just had it with imperialism. Let the shiftyeyedbastards in the middle east play games with the cost of oil. We'll leave them in the stone age when we move past oil technologically. Their loss. Same thing with Africa. To heck with Africa. We fixed ourselves. They can fix themselves. Last edited by azredhawk44; December 2, 2008 at 05:56 PM. |
|
December 2, 2008, 08:29 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 791
|
When I read the whole article, I must have taken from it, a different view. I can see the big and small bold letters are intended to spike interest and criticism. However, I don't feel the subliminal that this article is trying to incite, is the vision of the government.
As many of you know, there are millions of active duty, guard and reserve already homeland. But in the Headline..."Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011", it seems that the government is to completely dedicate those troops with the sole purpose of disaster clean-up/policing. I highly doubt the government, is prepared to spend the millions to have these troops trained and then let them sit around just waiting for an incident. They will be regular troops, doing what they regularly do, but specially trained for the disaster. They will be able to deploy to the location at a moments notice. But the standard day to day ops will continue. The cost to pay these troops to sit around and wait for an incident to happen is too much. I'm talking about a low end number of 60 million dollars per month. That's a lot to waste. If these troops were to be dedicated, that means that 20,000 more would have to come in replace them. It's just not feasible. If the plan was to have these troops go door to door to collect weapons... 1) That's not nearly enough troops to get the job done 2) The Government, if they wanted to, could use the National Guard already 3) I would like to believe that these troops would do the same as the local PD and "Just Say No"...being gun owners themselves In closing, I don't feel there is a threat for this batch of soldiers to be utilized in the immediate future for unCostitutional laws and Executive Orders. Now, maybe Martial Law during and after a crisis...perhaps.
__________________
When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil. - Thomas Jefferson |
December 2, 2008, 09:51 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
azredhawk44,
I would take it then that you are not a citizen of the world?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
December 3, 2008, 09:00 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2004
Location: Somewhere south of the No
Posts: 3,824
|
Quote:
__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." --American author Mark Twain (1835-1910) |
|
December 25, 2008, 08:45 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
i read this thread a few times yesterday and was wondering...is this thread for real or isn't it a saran wrap type discussion?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
December 25, 2008, 12:20 PM | #22 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
If however, you think there might be merit in pointing out the fallacies of certain popular thinking, there might be something to this thread. |
|
December 25, 2008, 12:29 PM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
yes that i understand. but if you throw in
Quote:
maybe its a benevolent act designed to counteract terrorism...
__________________
Quote:
|
||
December 25, 2008, 01:01 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
As the OP, I ask you this:
Can you name 10 times in history where a government began using its military against its own citizens, and that military intervention was to the benefit of the citizens? I cannot think of one. There are only three outcomes (or a mixture of 2 or more of the three) in history: 1 the military is used to oppress the citizens 2 the military is rendered useless for its primary mission of defending the citizens from external threats, as it becomes preoccupied with the interior mission 3 the military initiates a coup, and takes over I think this is very germane to firearms, since we have an incoming administration that is for "common sense gun laws" and is in possession of a tool box full of the Patriot Act, military forces that can be used civilly, and a host of other powers that were created during the GWOT.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
December 25, 2008, 01:09 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
yes i understand that also.
soooo...what are you saying the intent is, as you see it?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|