Another violation of Posse Comitatus

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Agent 007

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 7, 2009
    790
    16
    Just for the record, the Posse Comitatus act was repealed:
    • Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

    • The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

    • But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States. CQ.com

    Looks like you are right. Here's an article on the subject:

    Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law: 2007 National Defense Authorization Act overturns Posse Comitatus Act


    From the article:

    In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

    Sec. 1076 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law, passed in 1878, that prohibits the use of the regular military within the U.S. borders. The original passage of the Posse Comitatus Act was a very reactionary move that sealed the betrayal of Black people after the Civil War and brought the period of Reconstruction to an end. It decreed that federal troops could no longer be used inside the former Confederate states to enforce the new legal rights of Black people. Black people were turned over to the armed police and Klansmen serving the southern plantation owners, and the long period of Jim Crow began.

    During the 20th century, posse comitatus objectively started to play a new role within the bourgeois democratic framework: as a legal barrier to the direct influence of the powerful military establishment and the armed forces over domestic U.S. society. It served to some degree as an obstacle against military coups and presidents seizing military control over the country. (However, National Guard troops have been legally available to the ruling class for use inside the U.S., and there have been other loopholes to the prohibition of the use of armed forces domestically, as in the mobilization of Marine troops during the 1992 L.A. Rebellion.)

    So the changes to posse comitatus signed into law by Bush are extremely significant and ominous. Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or "other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."


    I really would like to know who ordered the troops to be deployed to Alabama for this incident, or if they were requested by local or state officials. It would seem that there would be at least a few state troopers or officers from other nearby civilian LE agencies that could have helped.

    One must consider that there is a lot of confusion during the initial stages of this type of incident. Perhaps they initially thought that it was a terrorist attack and asked for help from Ft. Rucker?

    Very interesting......
     
    Last edited:

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    Obama has access to some very scary powers now, thanks to Bush and the Congress in the post 9/11 fervor and furor. Will he be putting people in ovens? Not likely, I'll agree. This does not mean he will not be implementing some very unConstitutional policies which will stand until they are challenged and a lawsuit against the government is permitted and winds it's way to SCOTUS. This could be a long time away.

    He has spoken openly of a civilian security force as well funded and equipped as the US military. Somehow, I'm betting that they won't be out delivering Christmas cards to patriotic American gun owners, though it would not surprise me if they were all willing to kneel several times a day with their butts facing the sunset.

    Oh god. Do we have to go through this whole thing again? :n00b:

    Show me anywhere that he said anything about a "civilian security force" with the exception of 1 speech made in Colorado in which the context was volunteerism (i.e. peacecorp, americorp, community service) or foreign service (embassies, foreign service agents)? Show me any policy that is in the works. Anything? Anywhere? Please if you can't do that then can we unwind the tinfoil just a little on this topic? Geez.

    & what the heck is up with the reference to Islam? Yeah, I'm sure he'll be hiring the Islamic hordes to come & overrun the country. :dunno: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    I do agree with the first part of your post of the possibility of unConstitutional policies. I don'y know how 'likely' that is (no one can know that no matter what some people profess) but the bar was definitely set lower recently.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 17, 2008
    3,121
    36
    NE Indiana
    Oh god. Do we have to go through this whole thing again? :n00b:

    Show me anywhere that he said anything about a "civilian security force" with the exception of 1 speech made in Colorado in which the context was volunteerism (i.e. peacecorp, americorp, community service) or foreign service (embassies, foreign service agents)? Show me any policy that is in the works. Anything? Anywhere? Please if you can't do that then can we unwind the tinfoil just a little on this topic? Geez.

    Why does he need to say it more than once? He said it.

    Was he lying? Did he mis-speak and never correct himself? Does he not say what he means and we have "interpret" everything he says for "what he really meant?"

    I'll reproduce his quote in context here:

    We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

    We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
    He didn't say it as his main pretext with the sub-ideas of volunteerism underneath it, he included it as a way of accomplishing his stated goals as he said in an earlier part of his speech:

    [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.


    As far as a stated policy, I don't think he has one yet, but consider this quote from Rahm Emanuel's book,
    "The Plan: Big Ideas for America,":

    "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."


    It takes two people to conspire, and here we have two persons that work directly with one another saying in two different mediums at two separate times nearly the same thing.

    My honest guess is that James Carville put a serious smackdown on Obama after that speech and told him to bury the subject. If someone didn't tell the big "O" to shut his mouth then why won't the Whitehouse answer and questions about what "O" meant exactly, or meant "kinda", or was "trying" to say?
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    Why does he need to say it more than once? He said it.

    & Bush said "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier...just so long as I'm the dictator". Not only once, but at least twice. So what? Did he really mean it? There was no other context. He said it. Did the right wing wackos go nuts because he said he'd like to be a dictator? (just to be fair I think there are left wing wackos too.)


    Did he mis-speak and never correct himself?

    That seems to be the most likely scenario. Do you really think that even if he came out with a correction that the 'lunatic fringe' of the right wing would just drop it & say "Oh, OK, our bad"? Not likely.


    I'll reproduce his quote in context here:

    Thats close but if you add even a little more of the speech both before & after "the quote", it becomes even more obvious in what real context he was speaking of:


    [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

    People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

    We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

    We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

    This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.




    He didn't say it as his main pretext with the sub-ideas of volunteerism underneath it,

    Your right he used volunteerism as the main pretext with the sub idea of "the quote" to accomplish our national security goals throughtout the world.

    Quote:
    [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.



    I fail to see the sinister motive in the quote you posted & took the time to even highlight. So now you are saying that health care, education & restoring our standing is somehow subverting the Constitution & infringing on our rights?

    As far as a stated policy, I don't think he has one

    exactly

    consider this quote from Rahm Emanuel's book,
    "The Plan: Big Ideas for America,":


    "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

    OOH, thats some really scary stuff there. "Civil defense preparation"... sounds kind of like the Boy Scouts motto - 'Be Prepared'. Isn't that kind of the idea of a general militia made up of able-bodied men from the body of the general population tasked with defending the country from all threats. I can't see how a few months of basic training could hurt the country seeing as "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" and all. It seems to work OK for Isreal, who the right seems to be enfatuated with. In that same vein of reasoning I guess The Appleseed Project is also some sort of subversive group who try to assist people to become proficient in the use of arms so they can take over the country in some sort of military coup?

    I'm not real enthused about the idea of a military draft but if it was completely unbiased (as in the wealthy couldn't buy their useless kids way out of service - the old "I had different priorities" crap) then I don't think it would be a terrible thing. Maybe then the power brokers would have just as much to loose as the rest of us. They then might think twice about starting their useless wars.


    It takes two people to conspire, and here we have two persons that work directly with one another saying in two different mediums at two separate times nearly the same thing.

    So now its a 'conspiracy', huh? So when 535 people get together to pass laws that affect us is that also a conspiracy? Let me guess, only if you don't agree with them.

    They are conspiring to increase our national security by encouraging the idea of a strong volunteer mentality to promote our values here & abroad. How is that any different than what people did during WWII or any other time in a crisis? Right, it's not.

    I hear the Heavy Duty Reynolds Wrap works pretty well.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I'm not real enthused about the idea of a military draft but if it was completely unbiased (as in the wealthy couldn't buy their useless kids way out of service - the old "I had different priorities" crap) then I don't think it would be a terrible thing. Maybe then the power brokers would have just as much to loose as the rest of us. They then might think twice about starting their useless wars.

    More class warfare from Finity. That's the real reason Finity is a democrat. The rich man keepin em down. As in the wealthy Al Gore's daddy giving little Al a bodyguard detail in Viet Nam.

    I don't think that anyone should get special treatment for whatever reason when it comes time to serve one's country but the same tired leftist crap that the rich (republicans) buy their children out of service while they send the impoverished democrats to go out and die is rediculous.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 17, 2008
    3,121
    36
    NE Indiana
    Did he really mean it?

    In short, yes, I think he meant it.

    That seems to be the most likely scenario. Do you really think that even if he came out with a correction that the 'lunatic fringe' of the right wing would just drop it & say "Oh, OK, our bad"? Not likely.

    No, not the fringe right, but the mainstream right (TV, papers and blogs) would have dropped it much sooner. Even Gibbs (WH spokesperson) could have given a short, one-line answer to put it to rest. It is interesting to me only because "O" and staff and chosen not to answer. When a politician says repeatedly the word "change" and then makes an alleged slip of the tongue like this, it piques my cuiosity as a Freudian slip does.

    Thats close but if you add even a little more of the speech both before & after "the quote", it becomes even more obvious in what real context he was speaking of:

    Your right he used volunteerism as the main pretext with the sub idea of "the quote" to accomplish our national security goals throughtout the world.

    You prove my point for me. You quoted just a bit more than I did and it still appears to me that the highlighted part is part of a means to an end instead of the over-shadowing idea being broken down into volunteerism, etc. He didn't mention it as the over-arching idea, he put it in the middle of the listed methods that he wants to use to accomplish his goals.

    I fail to see the sinister motive in the quote you posted & took the time to even highlight. So now you are saying that health care, education & restoring our standing is somehow subverting the Constitution & infringing on our rights?


    I provided the entire quote for context and didn't want to be accused of cherrypicking words out of an unknown quotation. The highlighted sentence was to show his stated goals, not to say there is a conspiracy between the goals.

    OOH, thats some really scary stuff there. "Civil defense preparation"... sounds kind of like the Boy Scouts motto - 'Be Prepared'. Isn't that kind of the idea of a general militia made up of able-bodied men from the body of the general population tasked with defending the country from all threats.

    Strawman arugument. Points not in debate.

    I can't see how a few months of basic training could hurt the country seeing as "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" and all.

    If it was voluntary, I have no problem with it. Instead, until two days ago, it was written as required on Change.org. Two days ago it was changed to suggest that it be done. If the right, even the fringe right, wasn't pushing the questioning on this whole issue, I feel that it would not have been changed. Wasn't that what "O" wanted? To keep touch with the people through the website and change his policy according to feedback on the website? "O's" team felt the heat and melted accordingly.

    It seems to work OK for Isreal, who the right seems to be enfatuated with.

    Emphasis mine

    (Hypothetical question, no need to answer) So... you are making the assumption that I am infatuated with Israel or support for Israel and their policies, so I must feel the need to bring those policies to the U.S.?

    And to go the other way with it, you might be saying that "O" is trying to draw policy or procedure from Israel to incorporate into his policy? Hmm, interesting to me because from what I am seeing and reading, he seems to be doing his best to push away from Israel and its policies, not model us after them. Splashed across several headlines lately was the question from the Israeli government, "Who is the real Hillary Clinton" because she had reversed her stated position toward Israel in her current job as to when she and Bill were in the WH.

    I don't buy it if he makes it mandatory for us and I don't buy it if you are saying that he is mirroring Israel.

    In that same vein of reasoning I guess The Appleseed Project is also some sort of subversive group who try to assist people to become proficient in the use of arms so they can take over the country in some sort of military coup?

    Not subversive to me because I want other citizens to be able to effectively defend themself and their property from any government or government entity that intends them harm or that tries to limit/remove their rights. Also, there is nothing in print nor have I heard any verbalization (slips - Freudian or mis-speaking) that have given me concern that their goal is other than as stated. With "O", I now have a concern.

    To "O", non-gun owners and, IMO, liberals in general - Yes.

    If my concern is valid toward "O", he and his staff know that they will encounter grass-roots level resistance if they try to implement any project that is akin to what has happened prior in history. I don't put it past "O" to try something like that because, IMO, he thinks he has enough popularity to push anything through into law in the next four years, regardless of the Constitution.

    Watching "O", Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid operate in the last 50 or so days, their modus operandi seems to be that of a magician - Watch the left hand and forget about the right hand.

    I'm not real enthused about the idea of a military draft but if it was completely unbiased (as in the wealthy couldn't buy their useless kids way out of service - the old "I had different priorities" crap) then I don't think it would be a terrible thing. Maybe then the power brokers would have just as much to loose as the rest of us. They then might think twice about starting their useless wars.

    I disagree with a draft because it takes the element of choice for the citizen out of the matter.

    I agree with your last two sentiments.

    So now its a 'conspiracy', huh? So when 535 people get together to pass laws that affect us is that also a conspiracy? Let me guess, only if you don't agree with them.

    Yes, conspiracy if it is against the common will of the people, whether it be two people or 535 people like you say. I don't get my feelings hurt when I am out-voted by a fair process. I don't feel like Congress, which "O" was part of before being the President, is giving us a fair shake. As President, I don't feel that "O" is giving us a fair shake, either. Both Congress and the President project, to me, an air of, "We know better than the common man," and I disagree with them.

    They are conspiring to increase our national security by encouraging the idea of a strong volunteer mentality to promote our values here & abroad. How is that any different than what people did during WWII or any other time in a crisis? Right, it's not.

    I have no problem with volunteerism. I volunteered my five years on three aircraft carriers and on the beach 1989-1994. I continue to volunteer my time. Part of that volunteer time I use to educate myself on government issues that effect me, on educating myself and my family in general citizenship (including self defense) and would be glad to walk a picket line in continued volunteerism for national defense.

    The FED is supposed to oversee commerce and provide national defense outside the nation, not inside. I think that the inside-the-nation defense is a responsibility of the individual states.

    And I could argue that our current foreign policy is serving to undermine our national defense by wanting to associate with known and unknown terrorists while alienating some of our allies. And I don't think we have a lot of allies left at this point (insert blah blah Bush bashing blah blah here). I am not a Bush apologist. Just so we're clear, I don't think Bush represented himself as who he really was politically, either. I think in many ways that Bush harmed us inside and outside the country's borders.

    I hear the Heavy Duty Reynolds Wrap works pretty well.

    I don't wear a tinfoil hat.

    A conspiracy theorist tends to run away from confrontation. I was taught early on and it was re-enforced from 1989-1994 that I shouldn't run. I should attack what I want to change head-on.

    If you wish to be a "sheep" and not keep an eye on our government to raise the alarm when there is wrong-doing, that is fine. I only ask that you be honest and admit to being a sheep.

    I admit to being a "sheepdog" and will, to a certain extent, fight for your rights. If you fail your responsibility to react to the raised alarm, it is at your own peril. I cannot help you at that point.

    :patriot:
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    I have a question. Finity have you served in our countries armed forces? Our in some other community activity? I ask to have a better understanding of a couple of keys points in this thread. Thank you.
     

    HICKMAN

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    16,762
    48
    Lawrence Co.
    I have a question. Finity have you served in our countries armed forces? Our in some other community activity? I ask to have a better understanding of a couple of keys points in this thread. Thank you.

    I believe Finity said he was in the Navy once, don't know that he said what his job was on the boat.
     

    HICKMAN

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    16,762
    48
    Lawrence Co.
    I'm not real enthused about the idea of a military draft but if it was completely unbiased (as in the wealthy couldn't buy their useless kids way out of service - the old "I had different priorities" crap) then I don't think it would be a terrible thing. Maybe then the power brokers would have just as much to loose as the rest of us. They then might think twice about starting their useless wars.

    Prior to Iraq, would you please name every Republican president that led this country to war?
     

    CulpeperMM

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 3, 2009
    1,530
    36
    Fort Wayne
    Just for the record, the Posse Comitatus act was repealed:
    • Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

    • The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

    • But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States. CQ.com
    Good info that i did not know. Thanks doc
     

    MinuteManMike

    Expert
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 28, 2008
    1,116
    83
    Lawrence, IN
    lol...are you serious? love him or hate him, obama isnt going to round anyone up and exterminate them. i hope you were using hyperbole and thats not what you really feel is going to happen. its that thought process that leads to ruby ridge-esque incidents. the government is not out to get you. just because people dont have the same views as you doesnt mean theyre trying to kill you.

    You mean where the government sends agents out to entrap innocent folks, then use lying documents to create a "no show" incident so they can send out the assassins to kill uncooperative non-turncoats and their wife and kids?

    If that's what you meant by Ruby Ridge, then... yeah. I have to agree with you.

    The feds will absolutely gladly send out the goons to kill you if you annoy them. So will your local PD.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    More class warfare from Finity. That's the real reason Finity is a democrat. The rich man keepin em down. As in the wealthy Al Gore's daddy giving little Al a bodyguard detail in Viet Nam.

    I don't think that anyone should get special treatment for whatever reason when it comes time to serve one's country but the same tired leftist crap that the rich (republicans) buy their children out of service while they send the impoverished democrats to go out and die is rediculous.

    Why don't you read my post again. I'll wait...

    Now that you've done that, show me exactly where I said that only rich Republicans were the ones buying their kids out of military service? Right, I didn't. No where in that post did I even use the words Republican or Democrat. There are rich Democrats as well as rich Republicans.

    I have no idea why you constantly need to make crap up about what I say.

    It's a fact that the poor are overly represented in the armed forces. Rich peoples kids go to college on mommy & daddy's dime. The poor don't have that luxury. Deny it all you want but it doesn't make it false.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom