I dont think the sky is falling either....the point is not that they are on the streets now, but that the deployment has such a "mission."

I think its unconstitutional.

You don't think that the Army unit will follow military orders, smooth? Because they're on US soil and they're following military orders, it's martial law. The only reason it's not full on martial law is because the police are still in place following civilian law.

I'm sorry what was that you said in another thread about speculative discussion? That is purely speculation at this point. I'd almost push it as far as paranoia.

Again, we are not under military martial law in any way shape or form.
-----Added 7/10/2008 at 01 : 37 : 28-----
I'm not disagree with you. I'd like to see the challenges to it as well.

I'm disagreeing with will on his incorrect statement that we are under martial law for the past week, not even partial, limited, lite, or anything resembling that. Willravel is just plain wrong in that claim or belief.

yeah, will, the army unit will follow military orders, which will coordinate with civilian authorities. the army unit is and will continue to be under civilian laws, I don't how else to clarify this for you. Your definition of martial law is incorrect, however, I can at least clarify that for you. Martial law doesn't exist in conjunction with civil law, it's one or the other.

yeah, there is a strong distinction between generating the conditions of a state of emergency and declaring one. i've argued alot of times here that the bush people have a dangerous affection for generating the conditions of a state of emergency and have in the past moved quite close to declaring one formally (the "war on terror")--but they have not taken the step of actually doing it. doing it would mean the suspension of the constitutional order.

doing that is an extreme political risk, particularly for a group in the political straits of the bush administration at this point in their sorry-assed regime. they could not count on consent and so would in all probability have to move very aggressively and straight away to implement a state of emergency materially. i think that'd require a massive military action--and i don't think that the bush people have the credibility to organize it, the logistical capability to manage it nor a clear sense of objective.

even if a Real Problem were to arise--say a run on the banks--the LAST way these nitwits could stop it would be a state of emergency.

i think it's good to keep awake, look around, see what's happening and think about it, but it's neither useful or healthy to allow yourself to become paranoid.

these are angsty times. paranoia is way too easy.

Please just read the article:
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 - Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

will i'm not disagreeing with the statment, your speculation is that they WILL, not that they can. CAN is not speculation, the WILL portion of your statement is. Until they DO, it is speculation.

but I will emphasis Will that you are flat out wrong that we are under martial law. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Hopefully this clarifies further, when the article says "they maybe be called" you have to ask...called by whom?
Called by the civil authorities to augment their forces.

Assuming you were actually detained by a soldier, you would still be informed of your rights as a citizen and entitled to civil protections. You might be held temporarily in the brig, but you'd have the right to petition for Habeas Corpus. You would have none of these rights under Martial Law. Any rights or obligations would fall under the Military Code or whatever it's proper name is; the courts would be replaced by military tribunals.

Basically this is military soldiers performing police duties. It's concerning in its implications, but it's not martial law.

We need a 21st century posse comitatus type law to set the boundaries.

We had a 19th Century Posse Comitatus type law, called "Posse Comitatus," but the last half-dozen presidents have seen fit to use it, like the Constitution itself, as birdcage liners. This being the case, what makes you think they'd respect Posse Comitatus 2.0 any more than they respected Posse Comitatus 1.0?

2.0 apps are always better than the first release...but you make a valid point.

It's not a valid point!
Would people please read a bit about the history of these things?

It's important to question why Posse Comitatus was crafted in the first place.
It certainly wasn't about preventing the big bad government from interfering with your daily lives...unless your daily lives consisted of making the lives of ex-slaves miserable and doing whatever you could to curtail their rights.

It's also important to realize that the Act isn't a blanket prohibition against the use of federal forces on domestic soil; Congress has the authority to make exceptions.

Which last half-dozen presidents have violated the Act without Congressional support?

They're being deployed for the purpose of crowd control, but the fact that they probably will be involved in crowd control is wild speculation?
An active, ongoing military unit in the US is serving for the purposes of disaster relief and crowd control. This is clearly the imposition of military authority on US soil. Until there's evidence that the military unit will be working under civilian authority (and that's not a reasonable assumption), it's military authority on US soil.

You go first. Read up on the shenanigans the Federals got up to during Reconstruction. Then get back to me.

Which, you'll notice, they haven't done. Kinda like how they never declared war on Iraq. I'd also like to know; who allowed these "exceptions?" If the Posse Comitatus Act allows them, that's one thing, but I have a sneaky suspicion that Congress gave themselves the power to make those exceptions after the fact. I'll have to check.

Well, everyone from Nixon forward has used the military illegally against US Citizens as part of the War On Some Drugs, Clinton/Reno used various Army and Army Nat'l Guard units against the Branch Davidian church at Waco, Bush the Elder authorized the use of military personnel and hardward at Ruby Ridge, and Bush the Younger has deployed combat troops in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (where, among other things, they helped such worthies as the LAPD disarm the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans). Then of course you get into things like the WTO protests (AKA the Battle Of Seattle), where Nat'l guard troops were deployed (technically legal) under orders from Washington DC to control the crowds: legal, but in a hazy and troubling grey area.

I am fully aware of the intent of the original Posse Comitatus Act.

And I agree that CONGRESS has the authority to make excepts....not executive orders of a president.

All the more reason why we need a new law to establish clear and unambiguous bounderies for the role of the military in response to national "emergencies" whether those emergencies are natural disasters, civil unrest or terrorist attacks.

DC Dux, I only quoted you because you wrote the he raised a valid point. I actually agree that we need a 21st century understanding and reworking of the laws around the use of our police and military forces. You weren't included in the "people" in my post, that was directed at The Dunedan and Willravel.

The Dunedan actually writes that he's not aware of what the Act actually states and is factually wrong on his assertions about the legality of the use of federal troops on domestic soil.

Willravel is wrong on his working definition of what constitutes Martial Law.

It's annoying when people not only post something out of ignorance, but to steadfastly hold to their previous incorrect assertions rather than looking it up for themselves or revising their position in light of new facts.


EDIT: of course, DC Dux, as you know, the constitutionality of this isn't whether soldiers can be used on domestic soil. The problem is that Congressional support was given for the use of forces, but then repealed. The challenge is the constitutionality of presidential signing statements.

But if people run around without a clear understanding of what the Act restricting the use of federal forces on domestic soil actually says, or what Congress has allowed or disallowed, and then worse, employ hyperbolic statements about what is actually happening on the ground, then that not only makes people who have a better grasp of the situation shake their heads at such claims but also makes it very difficult to reach some kind of rational discussion about what needs to be done in light of terrorist and catastrophic threats to our nation.

If i remember right, military units were used against civilians all the way back as early as the bonus army protest, right?

law.com Law Dictionary

Like I said, it's not full martial law. Still, it shares common attributes with martial law, and is taking us in a direction towards martial law.
I'm sorry, all I read here was "blah blah blah" because I'm too stupid to possibly keep up in this difficult thread. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, poor persecuted willravel...posts something ignorant and feels that his intelligence is called into question and now can not follow the thread :\ Or, perhaps you could explain to us how you think that there could be such a thing as partial "complete control"? And you certainly are changing your tune since you were saying quite a bit more than "taking us in a direction towards martial law."

dksuddeth, so now using federal forces to evacuate people to safety is a bad thing? And the Posse Comitatus Act applies to DC how exactly?


yeah, I'm going to stand by my assertion that people need to inform themselves a bit more before posting in this discussion if they want to be taken more seriously...by me anyway, can't speak for Cynthetiq or DC Dux or roachboy.

Sharing attributes and going in the direction is still NOT martial law.

It isn't a percentage thing, it isn't a sounds like, feels like, seems like. It either is or it isn't.

to which you replied....

which is WRONG to both quotes.... "martial law starting a week ago," to "any martial law means we're in martial law"

You are plain and simply wrong but can't admit it.

What does a rescue mission have to do with federal forces providing law enforcement on US soil? Not a damn thing, but there is a huge difference in a rescue mission and crowd control, is there not?

I don't know which bonus army marches you were referring to, but the only ones I know of occurred in DC where the posse comitatus act does not apply.

And if you can't understand why people living in Katrina would appreciate federal forces helping them get the fuck out of New Orleans and protect their homes in the process I'm not sure where this discussion is going to go but probably not anywhere interesting.

But in answer to your direct question, no there is not a "huge" difference between rescuing people during a catastrophe and crowd control, it would be impossible to do one without the other given that people generally panic during a crisis.

The distinction is semantic. Right now we have US troops on US soil able to carry out law enforcement.

why wouldn't posse comitatus apply in DC?


and again, federalized national guard forces to conduct evacuations and rescues is all hunky dory with me because those are not law enforcement actions. So I ask, how does that apply?

so you see no difference in crowd control operations at the superdome during katrina and crowd control at the DNC/RNC??

Semantics doesn't change that this statement is WRONG.

and semantics again, doesn't change this one either.

because I have sperm in my ballsack doesn't mean I've impregnated women or have kids. Semantics has nothing to do with REALITY.

I didn't realize you were asking a sarcastic semantic question. I thought you were being honest.
That's my point. You're attacking my statements about how this is basically martial law instead of discussing the meat of the discussion. That's semantics. The meat, the important part of the discussion, is the terribly slippery slope of having active military personnel enforcing US laws on US soil. It's almost certainly illegal, but worse still it's a step in a direction that I doubt anyone is comfortable with.

because your statements are WRONG. plain and simple, which you won't say anything like "Oh right, I'm sorry I was wrong."

I've already stated that the dc_dux position I agree with. I find it possible to be unconsitutional, and should be investigated.

But, I'm not the one who said:
What is correct, is that a group of military personnel was deployed on US soil to be made available for law enforcement capability about a week ago.

That is NOT the same thing as a declaration of martial law in any way shape or form, or being in a state of martial law.

well, semantics shape reality, but that's another topic...

this is probably obvious, but it seems to me that the same precedent/legal provision that enabled the change in status of the national guard. this is an abstract of a paper i just found because as i was writing that sentence i started to wonder if i knew what i was talking about:

The Dual Status of the National Guard and the Total Force - Storming Media

first off, nixon again.
second, it's curious, but if this abstract touches on the main points developed in the article in a way that does not change what these points are, it seems that the change in status of the national guard into a reserve component of the military whcih can be deployed in conflict situations abroad derives its authority from a rhetorical shift rather than from a legal change, (where's loquitor when we need him?---and o yeah: rhetoric matters. so do semantics.) the same logic that would have called the national guard part of a "total force" could also be reversed. whence, it seems to me, the rationale for this blur of lines between military and police, abroad and domestic.

there must be more to this at the legal level--legislation since the "total force" idea was floated--but i don't have time at the moment to research it.

if this is correct, then there is a logical if not exactly legal basis for this of using military units for national guard functions that is quite independent of the newest fiasco a la bush that we are all eating now....which would mean that the two are not necessarily an expression one of the other, and so it would require an explicit action to link them.

what makes me think i don't have the whole story is that i cannot imagine the usage of the national guard since the reagan period to fight in wars and avoid the draft would not have already been challenged by SOMEONE...and if there was to be a challenge, you'd think the posse comitatus law would be a basis. but maybe no-one has challenged it really, and given the way the legal system operates (it's reactive to cases, it doesn't bother itself with questions of principle where there are no cases in the sense that i cannot imagine a court handing down a challenge to this policy without there being a case that brought the matter to its attention) what's required is a lawsuit.

but then again, there's this, from feb. 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html

i dont know if they were repealed.

so it's not like this is not a problematic area. but, again, it's because it's problematic that it pays to be cautious in drawing conclusions.

dksuddeth, I tried to edit my post before you replied because my rude sentence was uncalled for. If you'd edit your post to reflect mine, I'd appreciate it :)

Washington, DC is directly governed by Congress; it's a federal district, not a state.

How I feel about what seems proper uses of military on US soil isn't really relevant to what the law allows...unless I intend to martyr myself for an ideological belief. I don't, so until we all get to a proper understanding of what the threats vs. the benefits of employing them and a rational discussion about when to do so, we should stick with what the law currently allows until we can change it more in line with our beliefs.

Willravel, you might be interested in the following:
No one has ever been prosecuted under posse comitatus and likely never will be.

He's fortunate that you've decided to discuss the thread topic with him.
Precisely.

done, good sir.

I realize that there is the whole argument of 'incorporation' when it concerns the bill of rights, but is your position that the constitution or its laws do not apply to DC? asking this out of confusion.

I'm not making a general argument about how laws are enforced in DC.
You and I were discussing whether the deployment of US forces against the bonus army was a violation of the posse comitatus act.
Since it's a statute passed by Congress, and within it has provisions for Congress to authorize force when it deems fit, then we can either try and construct a legal argument about the legitimacy of mobilizing federal forces in a federal district *or* we can dig through the congressional records to see if they passed a bill on the way out the door authorizing the use of federal force to protect them from the vets marching on them.

Either way you want to do it, I think we can safely conclude that in regards to the bonus army marches, the use of federal troops to protect congress was legal :)

I'm glad that you can Palin the discussion into a solid Wookie defense.

having read more about it (work sucks when it gets in the way), I concede to your correct conclusions. Isn't it funny how the government will mobilize it's best forces to protect itself against unpopular decisions? Kind of points to a certain validity in the conclusion that congress is indeed prepping for military action against civilians with northcom.

Will, I have a question for you that will help me understand your opinion here a little better. After I get your answer, I will comment further.

Theoretic situation: Lets say that there was a riot in Dallas, and the Dallas Police department requested police units from say Houston to come help. Would you be ok with that? or do you find a problem with it? After your response I will make my statement.

It depends. In the US, there have only been a handful of protests that have required additional police (LA riots, WTO, etc.). Dallas has a ton of police, so it would have to be a very large, very unruly protest. It would also depend on how they were behaving. Police have to follow rules, too, and tasing, spraying and shooting with nonlethal projectiles innocent people is unacceptable.

I'm afraid this is apples and oranges, though. Military personnel are held responsible not by civilian court but military court, which is different. Military personnel have very different training than police in dealing with pretty much any situation. The military has access to more substantial armament. I think you can see where this is going. It's nothing personal to military, but really the military can do a lot more damage to a crowd of protesters than your average police department. Moreover, there's no recent precedence for the local police not being able to deal with protesters, which makes me question why they might need the military all of a sudden.

as I read the last sentence you posted will....

the Bank of America shootout in North Hollywood shootout in 1997 came to mind.

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe because todays violent protestors can be as armed as those two and not as peaceful as one may think.

When I was in the military I was on an EST team. What you would call SWAT. WE were highly trained, and we wee damned good. So good, in fact, that we were called on to train local civilian Law Enforcement agencies. Those that we trained went back to train their own agencies units. "Very different training"? Not so much, I think.

Granted, your local PD doesn't have access to F-14s, minuteman missles, stealth bombers or tomahawk cruise missles...but I guaranwelldamntee you that they have access to the exact same small arms that the military carries.

True.
And...I'll let you in something a little scarier. Back in 1985, agents of the FBI came to Offutt Air Force Base to brief the Security Police of their growing concern over the emergence of the Bloods and the Crips in Omaha. These were, until then, only in L.A. Their concern was that these gangs were more heavily armed than we were on a military installation.

Bank robbing ≠ protesting.
I'm only speaking from secondary experience of course, but how many law enforcement officers train to use grenades in an urban environment? While I would assume there are certainly similarities between military and police training, I would imagine that the military training includes somewhat more dangerous situations than one might normally deal with in the US. I had a friend of mine serving in Iraq describe a situation he was in as "similar to that one part of Clear and Present Danger" (referring to the ambush scene where automatic weapons and missile launchers were used to attack a motorcade from surrounding buildings).
I would be very surprised if any local police ever needed anything more than a standard issue sidearm at a protest. As a protester, I know that the danger police are normally in during a protest is minimal. The most danger a police officer is likely to see is a rock or two, and even that is exceedingly rare. I can't imagine needing automatic weapons to deal with one or two people throwing rocks.

It may not be equal to protesting... but my point is that normal people have access to small arms that are not able to be repelled by the police. You don't seem to look at the ability of the possibility but dismiss it out of hand because it's not equal.

I'll leave you with old photo of NYC

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...thetiq/027.jpg

President Wilson expected some sort of anti-war rally.... a bit overkill, but doesn't seem too far fetched based on the fact it has happened before.

so what were you saying about sidearms and the danger to police and officials?