This is not good - Army in Alabama - Merged

[divemedic]

I do not see how it is "tinfoil hat" to point out that someone broke the law. The law was broken, period. However you want to attempt to justify it, what happened was illegal. funny thing is, no one here has really argued that what happen was legal, all of the people who believe that the MPs should have been there are arguing expediency, not law.

All of the excuses here are missing one thing: The base commander of an Army post does not have the legal authority to do what he did. I never said that there was some conspiracy, I am just saying he was wrong and broke the law. That should be dealt with. Especially claiming to be police, they should deal in what is legal, not expedient.

I don't see how anyone can support this while supporting the rule of law.

I have no idea what MFMSC means.

 

[LaBulldog]

The U.S. military can and does help during domestic disasters. Unless authorized to do so by Congress, they have no police powers.

The Army can come to town, they cannot do police work.

 

[ilbob]

The base commander of an Army post does not have the legal authority to do what he did.

You are making an assumption what the soldiers did was illegal. I am not sure you can make that case based on what is currently known.

It seems kind of close to the edge, but without a full understanding of what was ordered and what was done, it is hard to say with any certainty.

It does not appear the soldiers were actively engaged in enforcing any kind of state law, nor did they make any arrests. The law is pretty clear that they can provide some forms of assistance to local law enforcement on request.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let me ask a dread hypothetical to the constitutional experts.

1. A full blooded set of Americans go nuts, like the dude who shot up a church recently to get the 'liberals'.

2. This set duplicates 9/11 and takes over 4 jets.

3. This time we get some warning, maybe 20 minutes.

4. They intend to crash into the Sears Tower, Hancock tower, Austin Capitol and the Statue of Libery.

Is it law enforcement only - can the USAF do anything?

Or

1. Their motivation is purely economic - send money to an account in the Caymans and give us amensty. Purely economic is just criminal and not rebellion?

Can the armed forces intervene?

So if 3000 more die, is it ok on the Internet. The exception proofs the rule.

 

[flippycat]

Glenn E. Meyer I think you raise some very interesting situations to ponder over but I think taking it to the air in regards to this topic takes it out of the realm in which the laws in place where designed for. I am far from an expert but I do find it interesting none the less.

Civilian airliners with large numbers of American citizens are no longer exempt from military attack and the command to take out domestic air threats is under NORADS control if there is not time to reach the president.

And if I am not mistaken now under NORTHCOM.

The fact that no civil law enforcement even has the potential, training or equipment to address this issue in the sky is why military intervention is allowed. Civil law enforcement has only recently(post 9/11) been receiving training to deal with the aftermath.

Even if your could bind this scenario under posse comitatus, you left ample time in your scenario to allow the command to be ordered by the appropriate bodys that govern it.

Put your scenarios on the ground so it is an equal playing field in regards to the laws about rules of engagement.

The issue I have is not that they were there at all, it was the order was not passed down the proper chain of command to do so.

I mean if you think about it, we are ALL individuals with our own unique way of thinking, what I may feel is morally right or wrong does not stand water in a court of law in regards to my actions. So why should special treatment be given in this situation even.

If proper channels were used in this situation this issue would not even raise an eyebrow from me.

But it just shows how unprepared STILL our law enforcement in rural areas is to deal with crisis even after all the training recommendations about domestic terrorism.

Their force IS small so why have programs like COP(citizens on patrol) not been introduced there so they could be self sufficient in a "special event".

I am no expert as I have said, but I truly find these topics interesting because it does give insight and raise personal awareness in regards to these types of scenarios.

Maybe if more people talked about these subjects and not deemed them taboo or guise them under "it could never happen" we as a whole would be able to address them effectively and with out hesitation or possible persecution when they arose.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So the military can blow you up in a purely economically motivated crime but cannot arrest you?

Is that what this is all about? As far as ample time, we've seen the appropriate authorities taking too long to act or decide.

Can the President order an action that seemingly violates the law and order the shoot down?

Not to thread hijack but this debate is similar to one theory of moral actions. In one case, the most moral action is absolutism to the law - even if it becomes a suicide pack or leads to death of innocents. Another is that a moral action is to follow the values of your own conscience if it promotes the greater good or moral cause.

I proposed the resolution for some is that if some situation like postulated, if some law breaking member of the military tries to aid you, refuse the help and perish in the flames.

If the immediate action is to prevent harm, as compared to a conspiracist expansion of military power, then I'm not fretting.

Of course, let's bring up the Katrina example.

Look at it two ways, depending on your personality structure:

1. Was it a stupid, misguided and illegal action postulated on a mistaken belief it would aid in saving lives?

2. Was it a planned conspiracy on the slippery slope to gun confiscation?

Since it was probably #1 - it was corrected in the courts, IIRC.

So, if in a seeming emergency, some military unit tries to save lives (did they here?) - our normal processes are really self correcting. If it is a conspiracy the law means nothing anyway when the black heliocopters come for you.

 

[ilbob]

1. A full blooded set of Americans go nuts, like the dude who shot up a church recently to get the 'liberals'.

2. This set duplicates 9/11 and takes over 4 jets.

3. This time we get some warning, maybe 20 minutes.

4. They intend to crash into the Sears Tower, Hancock tower, Austin Capitol and the Statue of Libery.

Is it law enforcement only - can the USAF do anything?

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Posse comitatus does not prohibit all LE activities of the US military. Only those not expressly authorized by Congress. I believe there is some kind of provision for the military to be used if requested by local authorities.

I do agree it is a slippery slope that we should not be approaching. I wish congress would decide just what the military can do and what it cannot in these kind of situations.

 

[highrolls]

ilbob is exactly correct, but under posse comitatus. What has happened here is that Glenn E. Meyer is, I suspect, very well versed in these things and has thrown us a "trick" question to assist in our education. He has introduced a second set of law, most of which has never been tested, but came close during 911. That is the Emergency Powers and emergency executive authority for the most dire circumstances. That is the tin foil hat area. Speculation about it, I mean.

I recall Tommy Franks on the news some years back stating to the effect that if Al Quaeda were to nuke us, then it would be martial law the next day. He was aluding to the Emergency Powers stuff. There are several conspiracies along these lines. Every one I have seen is false. To believe those conspiracies is to not do your homework. All of the executive emergency powers are available from the library of congress. They are available in the entirety of text to the public. The truth is out there but some prefer a good conspiracy.

Can the President order an action that seemingly violates the law and order the shoot down?

Posse Comitatus is superceded in this case by Emergency Powers.
The answer is yes, legally, under the circumstances addressed by Emergency Powers and approved by congress - already. I suspect the results would not be good for political survival of anyone involved, but this as previously stated has not yet been tested in the real world.

Posse Comitatus has been with us a long time and the history of it is well documented. We have real world examples for study.

Of course, let's bring up the Katrina example.

Look at it two ways, depending on your personality structure:

1. Was it a stupid, misguided and illegal action postulated on a mistaken belief it would aid in saving lives?

You were close with number one. It was incompetence.

NBC reports on Governor Blanco's Katrina mistakes:

http://newsbusters.org/node/2072

When a Governor makes mistakes with legal use of troops (National Guard in this case) they are responsible to their own state residents. I believe a price was paid here. Anybody know who the NEW governor is? Yep, that's how it's supposed to work.

Emergency Powers is a whole new bucket of worms. Hopefully, we will NEVER see how that works.

 

[globemaster3]

OK, here is a true, no kidding example of how being bound by laws with zero lattitude for moral interjection can be wrong.

This really occurred during Hurricane Ivan.

An active duty C-17 crew of mine was flying FEMA cargo to a location in Texas, and then was going to another location further in Texas (locations witheld to protect the innocent).

Upon arriving my crew finds a Texas ANG C-130 broke down and a full load of patients and an aeromedical team stranded. Many of these patients are elderly, several in critical condition. During my crew's download, 2 of the patients have to be resucitated.

The aeromed team approaches my crew and asks for help (thinking "hey, there's a plane that's working"). Now realize, this ANG acft is operating under Title 32, my C-17 is under Title 10. My crew's answer, "absolutely." There's room in the C-17 for all of them and their next stop was the destination for the C-130.

An unknown Colonel approaches my crew and informs them of the problem with Title 10 vs 32 in this case. The doctor is standing there explaining that if they wait too much longer, a couple of the patients will die. My crew says forget the law, loss of life is more important and begins loading the patients, aeromed team, and all of their equipment.

The funny part is at this time a sheriff's deputy arrives, walks onto the C-17, and rather sheepishly informs the crew he was directed to prevent the C-17 from taking off unless the patients were on board by order of the govenor. My crew informs the deputy they are taking the patients.

As they are taxiing out, they receive a satellite phone call that the govenor has validated the patient load with FEMA to the US Transportation Command and down through the Tanker Airlift Control Center.

Technically, my crew broke the law putting the patients on the jet. Had they followed the letter of the law and departed when they should have and ignored the situation (the legal alternative) vs taking the time to load these patients, people would have died.

I agree laws are there to be followed, for the conduct of good order and discipline, and anyone who has read any of my posts should know I will never advocate any action that would break the law, all the way down to not stealing election signs for target stands. However, there comes a point where you must use common sense. Our legislature cannot predict every eventuality and there will be those .001% flukes where following the letter of the law does not meet its intent. In those cases, you've got to fall back to a defensible moral position.

In the case of the MP's helping out the local law enforcement, from what I've read, they performed nothing more than yeoman's work and didn't do any law enforcement activities. It sounds like the local law enforcement was probably undermanned for what it was tasked to do and needed the help and the assistance they provided allowed the LEOs to focus on the search for the suspect, preserved evidence, and the end result is a sounder case for the prosecution with this evidence to put a killer behind bars. Had they not helped, evidence could have been lost, the killer might have gotten away, the community would have been in more danger. The truth will be borne as more facts come in.

There have been multiple times in recent history where active duty troops helped out local communities in need. Its part of the base-community relationship. I've seen units volunteer to fill sandbags during floods, search for survivors of tornados, and help local communities recover from storm damage.

Those in search of conspiracy need to chill out on this. If the proof rises that they performed police action, more than just crowd and traffic control, and these troops were willfully involved in martial law-type behavior, then be concerned. Until then, please hand over the tinfoil hats.

 

[flippycat]

So the military can blow you up in a purely economically motivated crime but cannot arrest you?

I only agree with that if it is ordered by the powers that be and follows the letter of the law governing it. If it is not ordered, then I would expect the duty to fall on the civil sectors who are duty bound to enforce the situation to the best of their ability.

In the air situation though, civil leo has virtually no ability to approach the situation. And I have yet to see any local tax dollars going to buy f-16s and training for my local pd. If situations like this are of concern they they need to take measures to be able to address it.

Is that what this is all about? As far as ample time, we've seen the appropriate authorities taking too long to act or decide.

With technology what it is today there is no excuse in regards to communication of a threat. The real issues is just like you said though , the time to decide. This to me represents poor preparation. Millions are spent on think tanks and inquires to address these types of scenarios. The real issue is with to many not concerned about the issue at hand but the heat they face if the outcome goes wrong.

Can the President order an action that seemingly violates the law and order the shoot down?

I do not believe that it violates the law anymore as they put measures in place to exercise that authority on a few different levels aka "the proper channels" using the chain of command to operate within the guidelines of the laws imposed to govern those actions.

Not to thread hijack but this debate is similar to one theory of moral actions. In one case, the most moral action is absolutism to the law - even if it becomes a suicide pack or leads to death of innocents. Another is that a moral action is to follow the values of your own conscience if it promotes the greater good or moral cause.

But that poses the question, is the majority really in charge of what is considered the greater good? I am far from doom and gloom and hold a high value of the existence of life but the stop loss at all costs maybe part of the big problem. Trying to govern based on the 200 year old ideals of the "American dream" in my opinion 60% of the problem we face today. And I am not talking about our amendments, I am talking about the million or so things we tacked onto it to try and control every situation based on the greater good theory.

Morally good in the eyes of who is the real question. These same people who follow and preach the "it was morally acceptable" ideals are the same ones that will yell at the tv and say cut his balls off to a rapist on trial. Or the judge or officer who jokes that the offender is going to visit Bubba when he goes to jail.
How can one represent or uphold moral anything when they condone the acts of possible forced anal sex or the removal of ones testicles?

I proposed the resolution for some is that if some situation like postulated, if some law breaking member of the military tries to aid you, refuse the help and perish in the flames.

I personally would not expect to see military come to my aid ever unless it was ordered to do so. To be honest in today's overbearing laws we need to follow, my first thought if I new he was breaking the law would be maybe I do not want his help because even if I survive I may be spending 10 years in prison for abetting the crime. Yeah a stretch but much stranger things have happened.

If the immediate action is to prevent harm, as compared to a conspiracist expansion of military power, then I'm not fretting.

Of course, let's bring up the Katrina example.

Look at it two ways, depending on your personality structure:

1. Was it a stupid, misguided and illegal action postulated on a mistaken belief it would aid in saving lives?

2. Was it a planned conspiracy on the slippery slope to gun confiscation?

Since it was probably #1 - it was corrected in the courts, IIRC.

And what came out of it? Absolutely nothing, they were able to do what they wanted and no one had any recourse for their actions because someone thought it was morally right to do so based on the situation. It used the time of crisis as an excuse to break the law and go gun grabbing. If they put that much effort into daily law enforcement they could be pretty well assured that the people holding guns there had them legally which the majority did but yet they broke the law with no recourse for their actions. Typical double standard.

So, if in a seeming emergency, some military unit tries to save lives (did they here?) - our normal processes are really self correcting. If it is a conspiracy the law means nothing anyway when the black heliocopters come for you.

You mean a conspiracy absence of the law if they are coming it will not matter, but that does not mean we need to lube up and make it a pleasurable experience because it is deemed it is ok for them to do so.

 

[USASA]

globemaster3,

Good post. Goes along with my thinking and experience in situations working with civilian authorities.

 

[azredhawk44]

Glenn:

We don't have to run to Federal military air assets.

Air National Guard in many states. They can be called up by their governor just like the regular National Guard.

Of course, your local law enforcement are not going to be the ones who discover such a plot. It will be feds who assume "responsibility" for such investigations and reactions.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Air assets are not going to be controlled and allocated in real time by a governor.

The plot will be discovered with the planes in the air. Norad is tracking. So given I'm not up on all the statutes - can Norad track them and vector fighters?

 

[azredhawk44]

Sure, I've seen it on 24. (Or some TV show... can't remember).

I don't have my 1246 page copy of the Patriot Act handy, but I think that was one of the provisions of it. Allowing for a chain of command in the Executive Branch to handle such a situation, with ultimate responsibility for a yes/no shoot command lying in the hands of the President, SecDef or possibly one other person... a general of some sort. I dunno, can't remember.

Nothing in there about MP's securing a traffic light, though.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So that's what we are all excited about - that securing a traffic light leads to tyranny but we had the Patriot Act and citizens declared enemy combatants - blah, blah?

What if an enemy combatant ran a red light - can the Army send him to Comedy Driving School?

 

[Evan Thomas]

1. A full blooded set of Americans go nuts, like the dude who shot up a church recently to get the 'liberals'.

2. This set duplicates 9/11 and takes over 4 jets.

3. This time we get some warning, maybe 20 minutes.

4. They intend to crash into the Sears Tower, Hancock tower, Austin Capitol and the Statue of Libery.

Is it law enforcement only - can the USAF do anything?

Wow, Glenn... a reductio ad nine-elevenum!

Surely the original wording of Sec. 333 of the Insurrection Act of 1807 (which I believe is currently in force, after the '07 changes were repealed) gives the President the authority to order the jets shot down:

Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection...​

I think "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" would cover either of the political or the economic scenarios you posit. And it's surely a scenario with which state law-enforcement authorities would be unable to cope. (Could the Air National Guard respond inside the 20 minute time frame? One doubts...)

As to your last question, can the USAF do anything? (my italics) -- one can only hope they're better prepared than they were in '01.

So that's what we are all excited about - that securing a traffic light leads to tyranny but we had the Patriot Act and citizens declared enemy combatants - blah, blah?

Some of us can get pretty excited about both. The Patriot Act is a complete horror show, and ought to be repealed, but that doesn't mean I'm not also concerned to see active-duty troops used (yeah, illegally, I think that point's been made) in even the most benign law-enforcement role, as I don't think it's a good idea to accustom people to seeing them in that role. It's the thin end of a wedge stuck into a slippery slope, or words to that effect.

C'mon, Glenn, you must've had to teach systematic desensitization -- you know how that stuff works...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm still not convinced that the original OP is time to go to Condition Slippery Slope Red Alert. I think the air terrorism example demonstrates that in purely criminal enterprises we would expect the military to act against WMD situations.

Minor violations can be fixed later. Wide scale violations of Posse C. - probably mean they are planned and we have a different problem.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I'm still not convinced that the original OP is time to go to Condition Slippery Slope Red Alert.
..............

Minor violations can be fixed later.

Works for me -- as long as they do get fixed, and people don't lose sight of the fact that they are violations... But Condition Yellow Wedge-tip is appropriate, I think.

And I am a bit shocked to find myself lining up with the shiny-metal-hat crowd on any issue, but there it is...

"When they came for the conspiracy theorists, I remained silent..."

 

[globemaster3]

USASA, thanks. For some reason I see this as another Title 10 vs 32 battle just like the example, but it doesn't seem to register with anyone that way. Maybe because its so far over the top that even a 5th grader could make that decision right.

Same legal issue. Same illegal activity. But because it didn't contain a law enforcement entity (other than the sheepish sheriff), guess I am in left field.

Caddo 76, base, gear, stop, right.

 

[jimpeel]

I people want to worry about something, try this.

From the CONFERENCE REPORT ON HR3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
(As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved
by the Senate on August 25, 1994)

This is still in there as far as I know.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."
- Milton Friedman (forbes.com)

SEC. 90107. VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.-In this section-

"major violent crime or drug-related emergency" means an occasion or
instance in which violent crime, drug smuggling, drug trafficking, or drug
abuse violence reaches such levels, as determined by the President, that
Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and
capabilities to save lives, and to protect property and public health and
safety.

"State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands.

(b) DECLARATION OF VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS.-If
a major violent crime or drug-related emergency exists throughout a
State or a part of a State, the President may declare the State or part
of a State to be a violent crime or drug emergency area and may take
appropriate actions
authorized by this section.

(c) PROCEDURE.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-A request for a declaration designating an area to be a
violent crime or drug emergency area shall be made, in writing, by the chief
executive officer of a State or local government, respectively (or in the
case of the District of Columbia, the mayor), and shall be forwarded to the
Attorney General in such form as the Attorney General may by regulation
require. One or more cities, counties, States, or the District of Columbia
may submit a joint request for designation as a major violent crime or drug
emergency area under this subsection.

(2) FINDING.-A request made under paragraph (1) shall be based on a
written finding that the major violent crime or drug-related emergency is of
such severity and magnitude that Federal assistance is necessary to ensure
an effective response to save lives and to protect property and public health
and safety.

(d) IRRELEVANCY OF POPULATION DENSITY.-The President shall not limit
declarations made under this section to highly populated centers of violent
crime or drug trafficking, drug smuggling, or drug use, but shall also
consider applications from governments of less populated areas where the
magnitude and severity of such activities is beyond the capability of the
State or local government to respond.

(e) REQUIREMENTS.-As part of a request for a declaration under this
section, and as a prerequisite to Federal violent crime or drug emergency
assistance under this section, the chief executive officer of a State or
local government shall-

(1) take appropriate action under State or local law and furnish
information on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have
been or will be committed to alleviating the major violent crime- or
drug-related emergency;

(2) submit a detailed plan outlining that government's short- and
long-term plans to respond to the violent crime or drug emergency,
specifying the types and levels of Federal assistance requested and
including explicit goals (including quantitative goals) and timetables; and

(3) specify how Federal assistance provided under this section is intended
to achieve those goals.

(f) REVIEW PERIOD.-The Attorney General shall review a request submitted
pursuant to this section, and the President shall decide whether to declare a
violent crime or drug emergency area, within 30 days after receiving the
request.

(g) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.-The President may-

(1) direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize
its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including
personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, financial assistance, and
managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of State and local
assistance efforts; and

(2) provide technical and advisory assistance, including communications
support and law enforcement-related intelligence information.

(h) DURATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Federal assistance under this section shall not be
provided to a violent crime or drug emergency area for more than 1 year.

(2) EXTENSION.-The chief executive officer of a jurisdiction may apply to
the President for an extension of assistance beyond 1 year. The President
may extend the provision of Federal assistance for not more than an additional
180 days.

(i) REGULATIONS.-Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General shall issue regulations to implement this
section.

(j) NO EFFECT ON EXISTING AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section shall
diminish or detract from existing authority possessed by the President or
Attorney General.