Posse comitatus coming to an end?

[44 AMP]

The military has been used in the US before...

Against striking miners on more than one occassion, and most certainly be used again when the poeple in power deem it to be in the nations best interrests. The law contains more than enough exceptions so that any action may be legally justified, including house to house search by troops, if the authorities are willing to sign the paperwork declaring the needed level of "emergancy".

Any and all legal challenges will come well after the fact, and the way our system works, the only repercussions likely to those giving the orders is a loss of political prestige. And that is only going happen possibly years after the troops are sent in.

As far as the concept that we should not need a standing army, as per the Founding Fathers beliefs, a couple hundred years ago, we could have gotten away with it. But even then, our Founders recognised the need for a standing Navy. Ships of war were the most technological systems in use in the era. The need for having trained men to work them at need was well understood.

Gone are the days when a militia was able to be called up, and being as well equipped as the soldier, and owning a kowledge of basic drill and maneuver was able to priovide a viable fighting force. Things are waaay to technical for that today. And anything less advanced is seen as deliberately jeopardizing the lives of our troops, our sons and daughters.

Since a standing army must exist, they do exist, and they will be used. How, where, and why are decisions well above the pay grade of most of us. All we get to do is voice our opinions to our elected representatives, and hope the act in accordance with both our wishes and our best interests.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Any and all legal challenges will come well after the fact, and the way our system works, the only repercussions likely to those giving the orders is a loss of political prestige. And that is only going happen possibly years after the troops are sent in.

After Katrina, Tennessee passed a law to make it illegal to confiscate firearms during a declared emergency. GOV Bredesen didn't like it but didn't dare veto it. Pretty quick response to a governmental intrusion. Many other states passed similiar laws. That is a little more than political prestige. I think politicians who confiscate firearms might lose more than prestige maybe their jobs as well.

All we get to do is voice our opinions to our elected representatives, and hope the act in accordance with both our wishes and our best interests.

NO! We get to vote and throw out those who oppress us. Listen to Guntalk Radio and Clark Apotion who with his Utah Gun group that stopped a state judge appointment. We can make a difference if we stay vigilent and involved. The NRA helped us defeat an anti-gun ordinance in our county and we stuffed it good. Democracy works, passivity does not.

 

[sewerman]

as with every consitutional law that provides the populace rights from oppression & tranny. this one's being adulterated and driven out of town.

let the goose stepping begin:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm



sewerman

 

[Erik]

"Posse comitatus coming to an end?"

No. The argument is that military involvement in disaster relief efforts equates to granting the military law enforcement powers. I submit that "disaster relief" and "law enforcement" are not synonymous.

 

[209]

I believe the concept is to have a unit on-hand and ready to deploy for disasters and to help in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Having briefly served in an NBC Decon type unit, I know they have a heck of a lot of equipment sitting around and it’d be silly not to use them in an NBC event. Likewise, a good combat engineer unit would be a nice thing to field quickly for certain types of problems. If they assign a light infantry brigade to the task, I'll be concerned.

I’m not initially worried by the idea. I am more concerned about the Obama proposal for a National Security Force. I think that could turn into something bad faster than having an Army unit dedicated to civil disaster/terrorist response.

Of course years from now, I may find myself facing something and saying, “How did that happen?” I'll be cursing my crystal ball. Sometimes a smart idea experiences a "creep" in design and becomes rather undesirable. And it mutates slowly.

 

[BlueTrain]

One of the times the military (not the National Guard) was used was to run the bonus marchers out of town. Ironically, they were WWI veterans and it happened in Washington, D.C. They even used tanks. The commander was MacArthur. This was before my time but one who was living here at the time said that MacArthur overstepped his authority, meaning he went farther than his orders said to, which in this case actually meant crossing the Anacostia River. Truman remembered that when MacArthur wanted to do the same thing in Korea.

The D.C. National Guard was used to help restore order in 1968, too, but I don't know if you want to count that or not.

Regarding the militia, colonial American style, and also the Swiss military system, you should understand that neither was voluntary and were not necessarily popular. In the case of the Swiss, it did not follow that the Swiss generally had a lot of confidence in their own ability to resist the Germans but apparently the leadership of the country at the time (1940) managed to rally the Swiss enough to adopt an active defensive posture. Naturally all this is arguable. The militia was certainly very active on the early American frontier, chiefly against the Indians but also the French. However, there were regular troops, if you can call them that, manning frontier forts all up and down the Alleghenies, chiefly. This period of history was actually quite short, roughly from 1750 to around 1800 (fifty years, not really so short a period) after which the threat to the states had pretty much been eliminated east of the Mississippi, except in the south. The regular troops I mention would have been state troops and existed, as far as I know, only in very limited numbers but the total population was still small.

I don't recall much mention of a militia in the west (beyond the Mississippi) except perhaps for Texas, which of course also had a regularly organized army, even if it was not uniformed. Federal troops carried most of the burden of surpressing the Indians in the west.

In countries like Germany under Hitler and others, it was still the police who carried out anything resembling policing and other bodies apart from the regular armed forces, namely the SS, who mainly did the dirty work of the state. While both Germany and the USSR may have been police states, they were not really military dictatorships. Dictatorships to be sure but generals didn't run the country.

 

[Erik]

Speaking of DC, I heard today that 12, 500 troops were on tap for inaugural events. I don't have further details.

 

[Wuchak]

...Cuba's elections are shams but I would argue that those in the Iraqi parliament were elected by the majority of the population in a legitimate election per their people's will.

So was the new Southern government headed by Jefferson Davis. We all know how that turned out. Lincoln, who used the US Military to invade and conquer the sovereign States of the South, should be universally despised as a tyrant and yet instead is heralded as one of the greatest Presidents in our history. That is in no small part due to the North's clever repackaging of him as the great liberator of the slaves and of the North rewriting history so people believe that slavery was a key reason for the war when nothing could be further than the truth.

 

[Chui]

Originally posted by divemedic: "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."

Amen, brother. Too few in this nation are knowledgable enough to know this, however

 

[Chuckusaret]

The president can direct the states to mobilize their National Guards to control riots, civil unrest etc. If there is an AWB approved I believe the Guard would be mobilized to enforce the ban. If this would be the case I would hope state governors would use "Home Rule" as the way to refuse to carry out the presidents order to use the troops to confiscate the weapons. Based on the riots/demonstrations in England I don't believe Obamanation has the gonads to start civil unrest early on in his term. If he should, I would recommend that he surround himself with the 20,000 troops on a daily basis. I do believe there is someone out there that will take exception to his attempt to ban weapons and take whatever action is necessary to have him cancel the law.

 

[BlueTrain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.