This is not good - Army in Alabama - Merged

First off, these MP's and army boys weren't armed. They were wearing duty gear but no rifles or sidearms, from what I have heard.

Secondly: How is this any different than a soldier in transit on a civilian plane, who decides to subdue an unruly passenger or kill a terrorist intent on taking or destroying the aircraft? Or a military convoy that comes across a demonstration of criminal force that is swamping the capacities of law enforcement?
Click to expand...

Hearing that they are unarmed is not the same as knowing they are unarmed. This is different from a soldier coming across the scene of the crime because somebody obviously sent them. Do you think they just decided to go out and do a good deed? Lastly, there are plenty of other law enforcement agencies who could have, and should have been called first.


I don't see a conspiracy with black helicopters and blue helmeted soldiers here but I do see something very wrong. I'm also viewing it from the standpoint of being on active duty and having federal LE authority. I'd really like to know how those soldiers ended up there without any other agencies being called, the ICS system being activated, etc.

http://vlex.com/vid/cooperation-political-subdivisions-19228500

The link goes to 14 USC 141, which was specifically written to allow USCG interaction with other agencies that request our assistance. I see no such mention of any one requesting Army assistance and know of no US Code that even allows the Army to assist in a situation like this. I don't pretend to be an expert on federal law, maybe somebody here can provide some more insight onto whether there is any code allowing the Army to render the same type of assistance when martial law has not been declared or the state governor is not requesting their assistance?
 
Last edited:
I don't see the Black helicopters either. I am just getting the word out about a POSSIBLE problem. There is nothing wrong with ringing the bell and keeping the PTB honest.
 
flippycat, I do not know if the original photo you used was clear enough to tell whether or not the military folks are wearing yellow bands that clearly say "police"? Just looking at the photo you posted suggests this is so. If so, and if they are regular army, this is really bad.

I have done a lot of research into the Posse Comitatus stuff. The 1878 Act was a mandantory part of putting the Union back together after the Civil War. It came from the southern states as a result of the "jack-booted" occupation of the south by the Union Army for about twelve years, which followed immediately after Sherman "burned" his way to the Gulf coast to force the south to reject any idea of further resistance. There were a lot of bad, bitter things, not the least of which was the hard feelings of the southerners even extended to the Ford theater assassination of President Lincoln.

That photo screams of something we have rarely ever seen. (By rarely, not even during both World Wars was it violated.) The original Act also contains mandatory penalties for violation. My military training covered this as well. I suspect all officers and senior NCO's of the military would react the way I have to that photo. It makes me feel that big things that are not good are coming, really a stomach sick feeling. The training comes from the professional service staff schools. If none of the guys in that photo had any concern about what they were doing, then professional military training has failed them or their superiors in the worst possible way.

Glenn E. Meyer:

"Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?"

Doing so violates one of the main glues of the Union, thus is equivalent to a constitutional crisis. The way you stated the question is a good one to explain how a mistake could be made, but the penalty will hit for sure I think.

"If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?"

Different issue and different constitutional crisis.

Maybe this will help with the second question.

Oath Keepers

http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/
 
I understand it was an unusual,stressful situation.A PD with a staff of 5 was overwhelmed and asked for help securing a crime scene

There is a problem,as has been mentioned,and discretionary exceptions to Posse Comitatus are a problem.

A serious investigation is going on,we will see what happens.

Comes down to it,the oath is to the Constitution,against all enemies,foriegn and domestic.

I want our military,if asked to take arms against US citizens,to say"Oh,no.We do not do that"
 
Damn. If the 5 man dept needed help, why Army MPs? Did the Alabama State Police have too much going on. Something stinks here. Bad, bad precedent. I hope we get some answers and not some dog and pony show of an explanation.
 
Quote from the article:

Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”--


I was an MP at a small Army post near Warrenton, Virginia in the early 60's. We did assist in traffic control when the Freedom Rider buses would pass though town. I cannot recall what procedures where followed to provide the traffic control to the city, but it didn't seem to cause any problems then...so I'd assume there should be no problem with this now.

BTW, we did carry our issued M1911A1's...but, NO AMMO. :(

We used to also furnish a squad of MP's for local veteran funerals. The funeral service detail was voluntary. I always volunteered when I could. To this day, being part of those services for our veterans, is my proudest memory.

.
 
Last edited:
I'm having a hard time with a constitution/legal issue getting my shorts in a wad over the initial report.
Click to expand...
That may be a problem someday. Most people don't get excited about anything.
However, Our founding fathers were wise enough to realize the Army didn't belong in civil matters. Posse Comitatus. Otherwise, a dictator could simply order the military to keep him in power. In the Alabama matter, it seems no one is taking the credit for sending troops.
I'm not piling the mattress against the door, either, but let's see if any more of these happen. (besides the DUI check points in Montana using the military).
Hmmm? Training? For What?
 
army smarmy

are you guys all nut cakes??????????the prohabition is to prevent active interaction against civilians.there is nothing about helping in traffic control or helping in a hurrican situation.the ruby ridge and waco were what should not happen.get real,or you will see bogge men all night.:rolleyes::eek::D
 
teddy, you need to step off the stump and rethink your words!
Hurricane assistance was with the "guard" NOT ACTIVE DUTY ARMY SOLDIERS and those guardsmen were knocking and doors and confiscating arms from honest citizens! Many of which are yet to get them back. It wasn't their commanders orders but they did do it!
This is why we do not invite this action in america!
Traffic control could have been handled by the Junior officer cadet kids like my 12 year old daughter did for big events in our town!
Brent
 
Yeah, I'm bothered by this, although I'm not much of a "black helicopters in tinfoil hats" type...

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind here... I wouldn't call it a deliberate plan, but I think that putting active-duty troops on the streets and calling it "traffic control," or whatever, is a good way to desensitize people to the idea of an expanded military role in law enforcement.

Glenn E. Meyer said:
Let's say there is a big base. Like where I live. Across from the big base, a nutso starts shooting up the kindergarten. But he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Glenn E. Meyer said:
If a Piper cub starts flying over town, dropping home made grenades and flying down the highways with a person in the passenger's seat with a NFA legal full auto hosing down the SUVs - should the myraid F-16s around here blow him up.
Click to expand...

Glenn, I think these hypothetical cases are bit, um... straw-mannish. It's possible, I guess, to make a case that in an acute emergency you'd want whatever help was available, but as I understand it, what happened in Alabama was that troops came in after the fact -- the shooting was over, the perpetrator was dead.

I might be less troubled if it were not following close on the heels of this:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army

... [T]his new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”
....
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
....
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.
​

And if you believe the last paragraph, have I got a bridge for you...

I find this chilling.
 
Last edited:
They may not have the legal responsibility, but they would have a Moral responsibility, just as a CCW holder would, IMHO.
Click to expand...

And that's were the argument breaks down. If you apply that standard, what if tomorrow it is "immoral" to own a gun?
 
Let's say there is a big base. Like where I live. Across from the big base, a nutso starts shooting up the kindergarten. But he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist.

The MPs see this. The local law is a bit away.

Should the MPs do anything, carrying official US Armed Forces firearms?

If they do, does it mean the Army is coming for my guns at a later time?
Click to expand...

Can I play, too?

Let's say that a man is killing some cops, and a convicted felon happens by, grabs a fallen officer's gun, and kills the murderers.

Will he be charged for a felon in possession of a firearm?

Does this mean the felon will kill me?

I can make up stories to "what if" anything.

A coordinated decision to use the Army for law enforcement is illegal. That is what this was. There was a time in this country where the local LEOs actually trusted their citizens, and deputized them when needed.

Now instead, they call the Army in to control the town. How is that an improvement?
 
A coordinated decision to use the Army for law enforcement is illegal. That is what this was. There was a time in this country where the local LEOs actually trusted their citizens, and deputized them when needed.

Now instead, they call the Army in to control the town. How is that an improvement?
Click to expand...

divemedic, that is an excellent point. One would certainly hope that a smallish rural police force has a volunteer reserve or a good old boy network to emergency-deputize some lay folks in time of crisis. I hope this community and many others take note of the concern arising here. As well as the obvious need to communicate with state patrol, neighboring cities, county sheriffs and other law enforcement organizations.

flippycat: thank you for the picture. Now that I see that these soldiers are deployed with vests saying "police" and them carrying firearms, I am officially bothered.
 
I've got to agree for the most part with the caution I've read. While I'm not outraged or angry by the deployment of active duty troops, it is troubling. More trouble is the lack of 'legitimate' journalism dedicated to the story.

In my opinion, counter-factuals regarding what an enlisted soldier's moral obligations are are misguided, as his/her conduct in such case would be a personal decision and not under military order.

Military policing of citizens should be distasteful. When necessary, prior options should be exhausted (first responders, National Guard, deputizing) and then proper channels (official requests) should be followed.

Let's hope that this is admitted as a mistake where no harm came from it and lessons were learned (too optimistic?).
 
I used to live near down there and spent a lot of time in that exact place. I'll explain this for those who haven't been to that particular place. Ft. Rucker is a few minutes down the road and the MP's were the largest nearby available police to supplement the effort that could be had in a reasonable span of time. If you've got a maniac on the loose shooting people in multiple places--and there was absolutely no way of knowing at the time that there wasn't more than one person doing the shooting--you've gotta use whatever good resources you have at the time and FAST.

It probably wasn't the most legally correct thing to do on paper, but it was the right decision to handle a crisis. I hate jackbooted thuggery, but this was not a case of it.
 
Normally id say the idea of troops in the street without authorization is a pretty scary idea, but considering what was happening to cause it i think it was an understandable reaction.

Should it be investigated? Definately. Will the person/people responsible be officially charged? Probably. But should the punishment be anything more than a robust slap on the wrists? Given the circumstances, extra-duty or community service is likely what would be decided upon, mainly so that the people in the community who are glad for the extra security in a time of momentary crisis can get a chance to say thank you.

But im not saying that they should make a habit of it.
 
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Let's say there is a big base. Like where I live. Across from the big base, a nutso starts shooting up the kindergarten. But he is just a good ol' American nutso and not a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Of course they should go thru the bureaucratic process first. After all, they wouldn't know for sure that it was terrorists doing the murdering--now would they? There simply must be official word from their Kommander before they do anything-- even if it's unflolding within view.

We should recognize that personal initiative during an immediate crisis is anethmatic to the system. The Soviets got it right. Why can't we?:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top