• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

U.S.Army dispatched soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The U.S. Army dispatched soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, a small southern town where a rampaging gunman killed 10 people on Tuesday. This obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the federal uniformed services from exercising state and local law enforcement was completely ignored by the corporate media with the exception of Reuters and the London Telegraph (see photo and video).

On September 30, 2008, the Army Times reported the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, a component of Northern Command, would be “on-call” in response to “natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.” The Army Times article reported the military would be used for “crowd and traffic control” and be issued “nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.” According to the article, “expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one..” (Emphasis added.)

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions granting the president the ability to use federal troops inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes (in Section 1076) were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

In 2008, Congress restored many of the earlier limitations on the president’s ability to deploy troops within the United States, but Bush issued a signing statement indicating he was not bound by the changes.

“The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington,” James Bovard wrote for the American Conservative on April 23, 2007. “Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it.”

The dispatch of troops to Alabama in response to a local law enforcement situation represents a further erosion of Posse Comitatus and the continued federalization of state and local law enforcement.

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=505
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In 2008, Congress restored many of the earlier limitations on the president’s ability to deploy troops within the United States, but Bush issued a signing statement indicating he was not bound by the changes.

Bush did that hundreds and hundreds of times- many times not even telling Congress he'd done it or refusing to give them the statement and the reasons...He twice went around Congress's passing of the law restricting/stopping Mexican truckers from operating in the U.S with a signing statement...

And the rubberstamp Repub Congress refused to question him on it- or challenge him....And I've been chastised for criticizing GW over it.....
But in doing so they allowed him to set Presidential precedent- which now is in the hands of Obama and the Democrats... :wink: :p
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So it's Bush's fault?

Sooner or later OT, you're going to realize that Obama does have a brain, and can make decisions for himself.

He just chooses to leave the decision making process to others!

Do you think the Military should be brought in, in a case like this?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think the Military should be brought in, in a case like this?


I don't really know enough about the situation or what their response is there for....Basically I don't believe the military should be called in for police activity- altho there have been times I wished I could- and went in with a tank instead of myself having to go thru the door- the Posse Comitatus rule is/was quite clear that the military should not be involved in police activities except in certain cases and certain activities where the National Guard may be called out by and under the control of the Governor...

Law enforcement have mutual aid agreements for circumstances that are more than they can handle....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think the Military should be brought in, in a case like this?

I don't know where you live ( nor do I care) but in these small towns....one incident can overwhelm their whole system.

The Nat'l Guard or whomever are there to render assistance and help...and that's great.

In cases where they need help....great..go help'em
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
hypocritexposer said:
Do you think the Military should be brought in, in a case like this?

I don't know where you live ( nor do I care) but in these small towns....one incident can overwhelm their whole system.

The Nat'l Guard or whomever are there to render assistance and help...and that's great.

In cases where they need help....great..go help'em

Agreed...But I don't think the President needs any special orders to use troops anywhere he feels they are needed. After all he IS the Commander in Chief. Seems I remember Roosevelt and others rounding up and putting in prison, hundreds of thousands during the war that were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Stormtroopers???
 

Mike

Well-known member
The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
 
Top