Posse Comitatus

[JeffL]

On Tuesday evenig, my wife and I heard that the US Army would join in the search for the D.C. area's so-called sniper with its RC-7 reconnaissance aircraft. We both looked at each other, and she asked if that was legal. I said that thought it violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which is one of the main reasons the Coast Guard is not part of the DOD. I predicted that some lawyer would protest the Army's involvement in the search, even though the plane(s) allegedly have FBI agents aboard and the crews will not be involved in any ground action but will "...relay data to law enforcement and would not decide on its own which targets to watch."

BINGO! The ACLU has voiced its protest to this development, saying that it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

I also predict that if the perpetrator(s) is (are) caught, some defense lawyer will use the same arguement to try to get his client(s) off.

It seems to me that any protest could have been avoided if a Coast Guard or FBI pilot was at the controls, since both agencies are based in law enforcement which would not violate the act.

Discussion, anyone?

[Boats]

Jeffl,

I don't know much about that law or even if I care. When they find this bastard he will be toast - no he will be blown away because a person like that won't go down without a shoot out.

I don't know what year that law was written in but there are many on the books just like it that should be null and void.

Of course there will be a string of lawyers in line to defend this creep but only for name recognition in the news. If there was a news and TV blackout on this guy - most lawyers wouldn't show up because whose going to pay them! Or maybe they will write a book that some weirdos would buy.

Jeff I wouldn't worry about this guy ever coming to court. When they finally get close he'll be doing a deep six count ASAP.

[blues clues]

boats the Posse Comitatus act was passed in 1876 I think don't hold me to that I guess back then the people was having some trouble with the army and marshal law, or from when the norht invaded the south.
razz

[Boats]

blues clues,

Do ya think its time to renew the details of this act? Thanks for
the input I'll try to look it when I get a chance.

1876 was a long time ago. Do all these laws stay on the books indefinetly?

[Keith_Hixson]

Is really a very good act. It prevents the United States from becoming a police state with the military acting as the police. In order for the military to help in local police matters they have to jump through certain hoops.

However, the Army could loan those planes to the National Guard and let the Governors of the states place them into action, etc and it would be legal. Several ways to get around it in times of emergency. Have planes operated by National Guard and FBI people on board and not the regular military.

Go to congress and get permission from both houses of congress for the use of military equipment and personel in this time of emergency, there are purposeful loop holes in the act so it isn't totally a black and white case. I just hope the military and personel involved in making the decision have used enough common sense not to blow the case.

I wouldn't want the whole of the military at the instant command of the president to use force against his own people at a whim. Like they do in many countries around the world. Go through the proper procedures and do it right and the equipment and personel can be used in this case.

Its a law preventing the USA from become a dictorial police state using the established federal military.

Keith

[blues clues]

Keith,boats before we all get too misty-eyed about the PCA. From what I've read was one of the most disgraceful plieces of legislation ever passed by congress which if you think about it is really saying quite a lotafter seeing some of the stuff that has come out of that place.
From what I've read (18 USC1385) PCA was passed as part of the corrupt bargain that allowed Rutherford B. Hayes to steal the 1876 election from Samuel Tilden,( and guess what Flordia WAS one of the disputed states they couldn't even get it right back then)it was to put a stop to the reconstruction and guaranteed the triumph of the violent counter-revolution.it just a though.
razz

[Keith_Hixson]

I believe it was the southern states that didn't want an invasion by Federal Troops for law enforcement purposes only. Them there Southern Rednecks felt that they needed some checks and balances from Northern intervention. They were willing to throw the election in order for the act (law) to be passed.

However, I believe it does serve as a check balance and helps prevent us from becoming police state with the President and Military have full control of the law enforcement. Just one quick meeting of congress, in less than a hour, the houses of congress could meet and authorize the use of the Federal Military in this particular situation. I believe it still is a good check and balance. I hate for us to become another, "banana dictatorship".

Keith

[JeffL]

I agree with Keith's posting. 100%. We most certainly don't need storm troopers marching through our living rooms. However, the act has been compromised with all the drug, immigrant and other garbage - within the US borders - in which our military has been involved. (Remeber the Marines shooting and killing the Mexican kid near the border in [what was it - Texas, Arizona, New Mexico???].) :cd: :cd:

Whether it's a flawed piece of legislation or not, it still applies today. My point in posting this was: ANY arguments resulting from such an action (remember - this is still just a local police problem) could have been averted if the proper crews were manning the planes.

If this creep or these creeps are cornered, I hope the cops take them out. Dead. Forever. I don't need to hear about the PhDs (Piled Higher and Deeper) needing to "study" people like this to further their own goals. We don't need all the costs of a trial or repeated trials (because of some slimy defense attorney), and the additional costs of appeals and additional hearings. Just kill the bastard(s).

Hmmm.... Defense lawyers. Johnny Cochrane and his kind come to mind. "If the bullet you have merely a bit, you must acquit!"

I have two words for their kind: A verb and a pronoun.

[Tamaroa]

Jeff and I had this discussion a few weeks ago. - - Posse Comitatus in action - - Not long ago, I happened across an odd site. I was crossing the Hudson river on a ferryboat and I noticed a rather mean nasty looking gray navy patrol boat sitting in the harbor. Nothing unusual given the extent and height of alerts since 9/11, but if you looked close, the U.S.S. Tornado was flying a Coast Guard ensign. The boat must have come off a drug interdiction patrol. Precisely BECAUSE of the PCA, the NAVY cannot stop a civilian boat. However, the Coast Guard in its law enforcement role has the ability to stop any vessel within our limits and any American vessel on the high seas.That is why you see a Coast Guard boarding party on a navy ship. when they need to stop someone they just run the coast guard ensign up the halyards and turn the boarding party over to the CG. Very resourceful and legal.

BillD.

[Packo]

That's basically what the act is about. Under it's guidence the military is allowed to be involved, but just in running the technical gear. They cannot make arrests. So, basically, the planes they have given could theoretically follow the bastard to his home, and civil authourities could then arrest him. As far as the ACLU is concerned, they would then probably jump in when they take his rifle away and complain that his gun rights are being violated and his actions were only a matter of him expressing his freedom of speech rights. I wouldn't believe the ACLU if they told me that day was light and night was dark.



J.E.B. Packo