|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums
Hot Topics & Current Events
Point-Counterpoint
Average Joe American|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
|
|
Member |
Oh no I believe it, I was just pointing out that legaleze rarely redefines reality. An armed body of men in uniform, with military training, equipment, and a chain of command is a still a military force no matter what title USC it derives it's authority from, be it title 10, or title 32. The Guard is still a military force when the Governor is it's CinC. It is most definitely NOT a police force. (But is often required to fulfill limited police duties) I know this because during the LA Riots we had to have LAPD officers with each platoon to make arrests legal and binding. I wonder, what legaleze was employed to allow the U.S. Cavalry to hunt outlaws post Civil War. I know the 11th Cavalry, a Federal unit did so in the early 1900s. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I could be wrong, but I do believe the NG was federalized in New Orleans. ( I was deployed elsewhere then) But units from my state (California) responded. I think they'd have to be federalized. Either way, when someone in BDUs with a name tape above his pocket that says U.S. ARMY (that's U.S. as in United States)takes your gun...or kicks your dog, or drinks your beer, and gooses yer mom, does it really matter what title of the US code he's operating under? If he wasn't operating under federal authority he was operating under federal blessing and knowledge. Now I'm not saying any of those things happened (looked like cops to me in the video), but trying to legally differentiate and exploit the derivations of a military forces' authority; led to the world seeing men wearing uniforms that said U.S. Army, drive Bradleys and a Combat Engineer Vehicle into a building to pump in CS gas...which one way or another precipitated an inferno that burned 60-odd women and children...American citizens...to death at Waco. |
|||
|
|
Member |
COMMENT: As I recall, there were ATF and other federal law enforcement personnel at Waco but no National Guard and certainly no members of the U.S. armed forces. In regard to that, we do have provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act -- a federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, Marines, and state National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
I stand by what I said. And I don't believe you have a clue what you are talking about. The government could be the trash man. But you stated - specifically - the military, not "the government. Whatever your point, I think I have you read very clearly. you are one of those who apparently did your time (as opposed to serving) carving the initials "FTA" into everything you can. And if you need to know what "FTA" stands for, just ask one of your shipmates. I think they will know. So you get defensive when you are called on the carpet for not knowing the difference between the military and the NG. As a SSGT, I would expect you had had some indoctrination regarding such things. I know that in PO Indoc (a couple of decades ago for me) we were given that information. Enough to know that our role was one thing, the reserves' role another, and the militia (NG, naval militia, and unorganized militia) yet another. If your feelings are so hurt, then do some research on the subject before you shoot your mouth off. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
Then if you read DoD Directive 5525.5, enclosure E4.1.3 which lays out what military personnel are NOT permitted to do (even as an assistance to ANY law enforcement agency): "E4.1.3. Restrictions on Direct Assistance. Except as otherwise provided in this enclosure, the prohibition on the use of military personnel "as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws" prohibits the following forms of direct assistance: E4.1.3.1. Interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity. E4.1.3.2. A search or seizure. E4.1.3.3. An arrest, apprehension, stop and frisk, or similar activity. E4.1.3.4. Use of military personnel for surveillance or pursuit of individuals, or as undercover agents, informants, investigators, or interrogators." http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5xWkylIebEAfU1XNyoA;_ylu...rres/pdf/552505p.pdf It is clear from this that the DoD does NOT consider the National Guard to be "military personnel" when not federalized. That the public has little or no clue, is of no consequence. They only care about appearances. I remember my dad telling me that the "military burned down the Branch Davidian settlement" because he watched the tanks going out to the place. I argued with him that that was not the military but the NG. He said "what's the difference?" Big difference! And any servicemember, whether NG or regular will know what that difference is. Another example is the CAP. They wear military uniforms are receive military support for their position as an auxiliary to the United States Air Force. They are even identified in Title 10. But does anyone think they are military? Not me. They are just a supporting entity with a clearly defined role. When a CAP cessna buzzes a tower, it is not a GCM that is convened, but the FAA is called to pull the poor schmuck's ticket. Paint it however you want. Call it what you want. The NG is not the military until called to serve by the President. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Guys, What does the Reservists, NG's and the what-not have to do with what I said? If someone can point out how this relates, I would greatly appreciate it. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
Here is some more reading from the DoD that will help clarify the issue. DoD Directive 3025.12 defines the role of the NG as the "primary" agency responsible:
"4.5. Role of the National Guard 4.5.1. Army and Air National Guard Forces have primary responsibility for providing military assistance to State and local government agencies in civil disturbances, normally serving on State active duty status under the command of the State's governor, in accordance with State law. 4.5.2. Federal Forces shall not be placed under the command of National Guard authorities who are not on Federal active duty. Federal Military Forces may conduct MACDIS operations with National Guard Forces, or otherwise support National Guard Forces that are operating under State orders. 4.5.3. National Guard Forces may be ordered into Federal service to ensure unified command and control of all Military Forces for MACDIS operations, if the President determines that action to be necessary in extreme circumstances. 4.5.4. The Army National Guard State Area Commands (STARCs) shall plan for contingency use of non-Federalized National Guard Forces for civil disturbance operations, and to facilitate MACDIS operations within its State, if federalized." http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.chmClI0C4Ah8JXNyoA;_ylu...rres/pdf/302512p.pdf I think that puts to rest definitively the notion that the NG and the military function in the same way. They do not. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
You're one to talk. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
Well, Snake asked the above question and I asked "what military". IMO, the image that Joe Sixpack conjures in his head about the government, however off-base that image may be, is wholly relevant to the thread. What I did was attempt to define that there is a difference between the military and the NG, even though Joe Sixpack middle America see no difference. It is there. It behooves us to educate him as to the true nature of things and correct his erroneous image. There are those, however, who jumped in and claim that they are one and the same. I disagree. That is how this thread got to this point. Every bit of this is relevant. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well. That would explain the separate drinking fountains in the barracks then. I agree they do not function in the same way, and you are absolutely correct legally. I think the strongest point you might make is that the Guard is not subject to the UCMJ until placed in Title 10 status. But I tend to see things in the same light as your father. Replace the word "military" with "incarceration". Replace Active/Reserves and National Guard with "Federal Prison" and "County Jail". Fed prison and county jail serve different purposes and function differently. But in the end, incarceration is still incarceration no matter who's holding the key to your cell. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
Ok, SDL, let's go behind the scenes a bit. My dad and I do not agree that we should invest in China. He (and I consider him to be Middle America. He is an oilfield mechanic. Been doing that for 60 years.)and I had a discussion regarding purchase of Chinese goods. What would be the impact if we stopped purchasing, for example, cotton T-shirts made in China? To Joe Sixpack, there would likely be enormous gains in the United States. Did you know that the cotton that is used to make those Tshirts is grown right here in Texas? On either Chapman Ranch near Corpus Christi or at the Reinsch Farm near Lubbock. From 1995 to 2003, the Hockley County coop (owned by the farmers) paid to the farmers more than 2.16 BILLION dollars. The population of Hockley County is about 22,000 people and virtually everyone is paid from that money. Over 8 years, that averages about 54,000 per family (give or take) per year. And it does not include government subsidies. We stop buying Chinese Tshirts, those families lose that income. I believe that those folks are Middle America. What does that do to them at that time?
The point is that Joe Sixpack's view is what shapes his attitude and when the Left (or Right) misleads him, then he gets pissed off. There are always three sides to the story: side one, side two, and the truth. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I agree with you there is a difference, but that difference makes no difference to Joe Sixpack in Waco, Los Angeles, or New Orleans. It made no difference to "Josef Sixpack" in Leningrad, who was driving the panzers. The Wehrmacht (military) or the SS (para-military police force). |
|||
|
|
Member |
However, it really looks like we are exporting jobs instead of mercantile.
While Joe Sixpack (as you put it) is a middle American, growing cotton in Texas, instead of shipping that cotton to be processed in China, it could very well be processed right here in the United States and also turn that processed cotton into T-Shirts right here in the United States and giving Americans jobs, instead of the Chinese. |
|||
|
|
Member |
COMMENT: Diva, do you realize that we now have about a 20% positive ratio in our trade with China? We ship them cotton to return to us as shirts that are more inexpensive than produced here, and they import heavy industrial equipment and other machinery that we produce here and also use here. At present, our trade ratio benefits us the most. And we lose about 15 million jobs annually to overseas treaties such as NAFTA, and we gain about 17 million jobs, mostly in the service sector such as computer support, etc. The complaint from many trade unions and blue collar workers is that they are losing some semi-skilled manufacturing positions to overseas industries, and they don't qualify for the mostly skilled positions created here. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
Except that the money is not coming INTO the country when the cotton stays in the U.S. By China buying it, that is revenue to help our current account balance. After all, everyone is crying about trade deficits. How exactly would the cotton staying in the country help our current account balance? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Since it has been mentioned in several comments, here is a relatively well-written analysis of Posse Comitatus for the one or two of you that may be interested. Though a bit dated, recent legislation further weakens Posse Comitatus.
The Myth of Posse Comitatus |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
The CG, under normal circumstances was under the DoT, not the DoD or DHS. They were considered law enforcement officers by their very nature. I was in college with several coasties in the 90s and that is their position. Obviously, the PCA would not apply to a law enforcement agency.
However, the PCA is not being "weakened" by recent legislation. The courts are more and more involved and making rulings that strengthen the PCA. Take, for example, U.S. v Chon, Costa and Kapule, 210 F.3rd 990 (9th Cir. 2000) where the 9th Circuit held that the NCIS, although headed by a civilian and staffed by civilians, is an arm of the Navy and therefore prohibited from civilian law enforcement participation. Then there is Taylor v State, 645 P.2d 522(okl.Cr. 1982) where Mr. Taylor was arrested by a CID agent and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded. U.S. v Red Feather, 392 F.Supp. 916, 921 (D.S.D. 1975) where civilian law enforcement authorities make "direct active use" of military personnel to execute the laws, was found to be violative of the law. U.S. v Jaramillo, 380 F.Supp. 1375 (D.Neb. 1974) where authorities violated the law when the use of military personnel pervaded the activities of civilian law enforcement. And my favorite, U.S. v McArthur, 419 F. Supp. 186 (D.N.D. 1975) where the PCA prohibits military authorities from subjecting civilians to military regs, proscriptions, or compulsions. The Congress can pass the law, but when challenged it may not be constitutional or legal. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I'd say it depends on the challenge. Posse Comitatus in and of itself is not a Constitutional constraint ... purely legislative. Congress can modify it (or create exceptions to it) as long as they don't trip over Constitutional provisions in doing so. |
|||
|
|
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engine intakes. |
|