Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-07-2008, 09:30 AM   #81 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
I don't disagree with that dc, but do you or I see military patroling the streets of DC (I'm not sure of DC since it isn't a state so military may move more easily there) or NYC? do you witness any servicemen containing and controlling people, setting curfew, or controlling sections of cities?

I disagree with the sky is falling cry of declaration of martial law.
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:31 AM   #82 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:35 AM   #83 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Thank you, DC. People from Fort Bragg can't normally be deployed to do crowd control during a protest. The 1st BCT can and likely will.
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-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-07-2008 at 09:38 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:44 AM   #84 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:44 AM   #85 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:45 AM   #86 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
That is purely speculation at this point. I'd almost push it as far as paranoia.
Please just read the article:
Quote:
...on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks....

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 - Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:51 AM   #87 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:53 AM   #88 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:05 AM   #89 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
We need a 21st century posse comitatus type law to set the boundaries.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:08 AM   #90 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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?
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:12 AM   #91 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
2.0 apps are always better than the first release...but you make a valid point.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:35 AM   #92 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:41 AM   #93 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
will i'm not disagreeing with the statement, 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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
but I will emphasis Will that you are flat out wrong that we are under martial law. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
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.

Last edited by Willravel; 10-07-2008 at 11:04 AM.. Reason: typo
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:49 AM   #94 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
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.
You go first. Read up on the shenanigans the Federals got up to during Reconstruction. Then get back to me.

Quote:
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, 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.

Quote:
Which last half-dozen presidents have violated the Act without Congressional support?
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.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:50 AM   #95 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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?
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:03 AM   #96 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2008 at 11:12 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:08 AM   #97 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan View Post
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.
If i remember right, military units were used against civilians all the way back as early as the bonus army protest, right?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:13 AM   #98 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
Willravel is wrong on his working definition of what constitutes Martial Law.
Quote:
Martial Law: a system of complete control by a country's military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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.
I'm sorry, all I read here was "blah blah blah" because I'm too stupid to possibly keep up in this difficult thread.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:19 AM   #99 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:21 AM   #100 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
we're already under martial law?
to which you replied....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Martial law started about a week ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Yes, it's not full martial law. Still, any martial law means we're in martial law. Anywhere this military unit is, there will theoretically be martial law.

BTW, I have no idea where they are. Anyone hear anything?
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.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:22 AM   #101 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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?
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?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:33 AM   #102 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
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 theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2008 at 11:43 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:33 AM   #103 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
Sharing attributes and going in the direction is still NOT martial law.
The distinction is semantic. Right now we have US troops on US soil able to carry out law enforcement.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:44 AM   #104 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
I don't know which bonus army marches you're referring to, but the only ones I know of occurred in DC where the posse comitatus act does not apply.
why wouldn't posse comitatus apply in DC?


Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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 what people generally do during a crisis.
so you see no difference in crowd control operations at the superdome during katrina and crowd control at the DNC/RNC??
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 10-07-2008 at 12:32 PM..
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:47 AM   #105 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Martial law started about a week ago.
Semantics doesn't change that this statement is WRONG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Yes, it's not full martial law. Still, any martial law means we're in martial law. Anywhere this military unit is, there will theoretically be martial law.

BTW, I have no idea where they are. Anyone hear anything?
and semantics again, doesn't change this one either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
The distinction is semantic. Right now we have US troops on US soil able to carry out law enforcement.
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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:11 PM   #106 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
Semantics doesn't change that this statement is WRONG.
I didn't realize you were asking a sarcastic semantic question. I thought you were being honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
Semantics has nothing to do with REALITY.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:15 PM   #107 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Martial law started about a week ago.
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.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:22 PM   #108 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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:

Quote:
The National Guard and Reserves are organized and funded to supplement active forces when needed. In peacetime, however, National Guard units belong to states, and state governors are the commanders in chief. Unless federalized, Guard members are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Guard units fall outside of the formal Department of Defense (DoD) command structure. Under the law, the National Guard is composed of individual, but nationally funded and regulated state militias that can be federalized and used as a reserve force. In 1947, a board appointed by Secretary of Defense James Forrestal recommended permanently federalizing the National Guard by making it part of the Reserves. The National Guard Association, a lobbying group representing Guard interests, appealed to Congress, and Secretary Forrestal's recommendation was rejected. In 1964, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recommended streamlining the Guard and Reserves by merging the Reserves into the Guard. The Reserve Officer's Association intervened and Congress again rejected the DoD's reserve component reorganization plan. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird coined the phrase "Total Force" in a memorandum issued on August 21, 1971. Secretary Laird believed that placing more emphasis on the National Guard and Reserves as part of a "Total Force" was the most feasible way to achieve national defense objectives with limited funding. Over the next 30 years, poorly equipped and inadequately trained National Guard and Reserve units were transformed and are now critical to the success of any military mission. This paper reviews the historic background that led to the current law that places the National Guard under control of the states as well as the impact of the Guard's legal status on the Total Force. The paper offers three options for changing the statutory scheme that governs the Guard and Reserves.
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:

Quote:
Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:23 PM   #109 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
not to be all rude and condescending, but 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??
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:
Quote:
32 C.F.R. § 501.4 Martial law.
Title 32 - National Defense



Title 32: National Defense
PART 501—EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 501.4 Martial law.

It is unlikely that situations requiring the commitment of Federal Armed Forces will necessitate the declaration of martial law. When Federal Armed Forces are committed in the event of civil disturbances, their proper role is to support, not supplant, civil authority. Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation; necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration. The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will depend upon the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time. In most instances the decision to impose martial law is made by the President, who normally announces his decision by a proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not permit obtaining prior approval from higher authority (§501.2). Whether or not a proclamation exists, it is incumbent upon commanders concerned to weigh every proposed action against the threat to public order and safety it is designed to meet, in order that the necessity therefor may be ascertained. When Federal Armed Forces have been committed in an objective area in a martial law situation, the population of the affected area will be informed of the rules of conduct and other restrictive measures the military is authorized to enforce. These will normally be announced by proclamation or order and will be given the widest possible publicity by all available media. Federal Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers previously inoperative in the affected area, restore and maintain order, insure the essential mechanics of distribution, transportation, and communication, and initiate necessary relief measures.
No one has ever been prosecuted under posse comitatus and likely never will be.

Quote:
Since Posse Comitatus does not directly apply to National Guard units, which are under the control of state governors, National Guard units have been nationalized under particular circumstances to place them under federal control and legal constraints. Civil rights unrest during the 1950’s and ‘60’s, rioting during a Democratic Party National Convention, and riots in the Watts area of Los Angeles were all events that strained the concepts of strict separation of National Guard and federal forces. Recent events have pointed out serious misconceptions of the law.

Contrary to popular thought, the prohibitions against using regular troops or federalized National Guard units in law enforcement are not absolute. The exceptions and enabling structures are written into the language of the statues. The Constitution has always required the President to be the keeper of public order. If the President receives a request from a state governor for assistance to quell public disorder, the President may issue a proclamation to the effect that order has broken down, and that those responsible must disperse. This proclamation is similar to the pre-1947 Riot Act. If order is not restored, the President may direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to apply whatever assets may be necessary to do so. Because of its plenary nature, this presidential authority is not subject to judicial review.

The misinterpretation of the law was evident during the riots in Los Angeles in April, 1992. Rioting broke out after the trial of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers for the beating of Rodney King. The Governor informed the President, and the President issued the required proclamation to disperse, and ordered the Secretary of Defense to employ assets of the DoD to restore order. This sequence of events nationalized the California National Guard and established a Joint Task Force (JTF) with members of the 7th ID and Marines from Camp Pendleton. The misinterpretation of the law was that active duty and guardsmen of the JTF were still under the Posse Comitatus, while the reality was that the Presidential Proclamation and subsequent order to the Secretary of Defense set aside Posse Comitatus. The JTF worked under rules of engagement that were unnecessarily restrictive. The confusion over use and distribution of hardware such as night vision goggles, radios, and helicopters generated undue friction and ill feelings among active duty, National Guard, and LAPD members.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2008 at 12:36 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:24 PM   #110 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
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.
He's fortunate that you've decided to discuss the thread topic with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
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.
Precisely.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:36 PM   #111 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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
done, good sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
Washington, DC is directly governed by Congress; it's a federal district, not a state.
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:09 PM   #112 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:18 PM   #113 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
He's fortunate that you've decided to discuss the thread topic with him.

Precisely.
I'm glad that you can Palin the discussion into a solid Wookie defense.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 02:16 PM   #114 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth View Post
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
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 06:24 AM   #115 (permalink)
Addict
 
Deltona Couple's Avatar
 
Location: Spring, Texas
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 is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison
Deltona Couple is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:49 AM   #116 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple View Post
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:52 AM   #117 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 09:23 AM   #118 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Military personnel have very different training than police in dealing with pretty much any situation.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
The military has access to more substantial armament.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
maybe because todays violent protestors can be as armed as those two and not as peaceful as one may think.
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.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 10-13-2008 at 09:28 AM..
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 09:50 AM   #119 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Bank robbing ≠ protesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights View Post
When I was in the military I was on an EST team. What you would call SWAT. WE were highly trained, and we were 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.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights View Post
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.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:32 AM   #120 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
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



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?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-13-2008 at 10:34 AM..
Cynthetiq is offline  
 

Tags
begins, law, martial, october


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360