| Author | Post |
|---|
quentusrex
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 01:14 am |
|
http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/2009/03/us-army-deploys-troops-to-alabama/
Can someone confirm/deny this?
Last edited on Thu Mar 12th, 2009 01:14 am by quentusrex
|
quentusrex
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 01:23 am |
|
| http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searchpopup?picId=8590289
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 01:53 am |
|
What the Eff?
I'm sorry, but what does the U.S. Army have to do with a domestic police issue?
|
MI-copperhead
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
| It doesnt have anything to do with domestic police issues, unless those are National Guardsmen, this is a direct violation of the posse comitatus act. I'm sorry to see it in the great state of Alabama. Last edited on Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:22 am by MI-copperhead
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:19 am |
|
MI-copperhead wrote: It doesnt have anything to do with domestic police issues, unless those are National Gaurdsmen, this is a direct violation of the posse comitatus act. I'm sorry to see it in the great state of Alabama.
What does one expect from a government that daily violates the very meaning of the word "federal"?
Note: federation and confederacy once meant the same thing--a league of sovereign states or countries.
Then, along came the sneaks who usurped their authority to strengthen the Articles of Confederation by secretly writing the US Constitution. In a wonderful display of twisting words they called themselves (wait for it) Federalists. Leaving the advocates for a true federation to be identified as Anti-Federalists.
So much for "consent of the governed" when they were being misled by the very name of the party advocating the new constitution. Which by the way did NOT have a Bill of Rights. That only came along after lots of fuss was raised.
(Sorry if some of this information turns your understanding on its head. It may not be soothing, but it is sooth.)
Last edited on Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:28 am by Citizen
|
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 268 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:45 am |
|
I have looked off and on all day for confirmation that the US Army sent soldiers to Samson, Alabama and all I have found were two photos at Reuters with captions that asserted the same.
I'm not saying it is not true, but I would like some confirmation. It is possible that they are, indeed, National Guardsmen. Unit insignia are indistinct in the photos.
I sure hope they were not US Army. And if they were, I sincerely hope the responsible parties are brought to account.
|
ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Mar 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:57 am |
|
Why are you so worried 
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 03:26 am |
|
American Rattlesnake wrote: I have looked off and on all day for confirmation that the US Army sent soldiers to Samson, Alabama and all I have found were two photos at Reuters with captions that asserted the same.
I'm not saying it is not true, but I would like some confirmation. It is possible that they are, indeed, National Guardsmen. Unit insignia are indistinct in the photos.
I sure hope they were not US Army. And if they were, I sincerely hope the responsible parties are brought to account.
Why not make a 411 call to get the non-emergency phone number of that town's police department or a local newspaper, radio station, etc?
Then just call.
|
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 268 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 03:50 am |
|
Citizen wrote: Why not make a 411 call to get the non-emergency phone number of that town's police department or a local newspaper, radio station, etc?
Then just call.
That's not a bad idea. Honestly, it never occurred to me.
|
Dianosis
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 03:51 am |
|
The following was posted at the bottom of the reuters pic:
U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama after a shooting spree March 10, 2009. At least 10 people including the suspected gunman and his mother were killed in the shooting spree and car chase in southern Alabama on Tuesday, authorities said. REUTERS/Mark Wallheiser (UNITED STATES CONFLICT SOCIETY IMAGE OF THE DAY TOP PICTURE)
Also found this:
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/03/11/alabama-shooting-rampage/gunman-michael-mclendon-kills-11-including-a-child-in-massacre.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
|
rscottie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:00 pm |
|
ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp wrote: Why are you so worried
OK, either you are a troll and I'm silly for taking the bait, or you are sadly delusional about the role of our government.
Either way, I suggest you do a little research and then you'll be able to answer that question for yourself. I suggest you start with what our founding fathers thought about standing armies and work your way forward. You could even look at issues the citizens (subjects) had with the Kings and troops in Medieval Times.
Then, after your learning session, we'll see if you can still ask that question with a straight...oops, ok, a smiling face!
|
SFCRetired
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 286 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 02:34 pm |
|
In none of the news coverage from our Montgomery TV station were soldiers shown. I am thinking that if soldiers were there, they were there at the request of the local authorities to assist in preserving evidence at the crime scenes.
Considering the size of the communities involved and the size of their respective police forces, it would not be beyond the realm of reality for such a request to be made while awaiting assistance from state troopers and ABI.
If I understand Posse Comitatus correctly, it forbids the use of military in law enforcement. It does not forbid the use of military to assist civilian authorities in a passive role.
Others of you with better knowledge of the law may be better able to enlighten us.
|
Daddyo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Moody, AL |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 03:26 pm |
|
I was doing some research last night and discovered that on more than one occasion the military has refused to participate in requested law enforcement actions. Most notably Waco. The article I read said that they provided the equipment with the understanding that it would be used only to clear vehicles etc. from the yard and the vehicles would be operated by FBI/ATF folks. The military was there only in an advisory role and left before the final assault.
My guess is that if guardsmen were present (you can't believe everything you see on the net) they were there most likely guarding the crime scenes. There's no way the police would have enough manpower to secure multiple widely spread scenes.
I'll cut 'em some slack on this one, but I am watching events warily.
|
cvickers
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | Orlando, Fl., USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 03:55 pm |
|
American Rattlesnake wrote: I have looked off and on all day for confirmation that the US Army sent soldiers to Samson, Alabama and all I have found were two photos at Reuters with captions that asserted the same.
I'm not saying it is not true, but I would like some confirmation. It is possible that they are, indeed, National Guardsmen. Unit insignia are indistinct in the photos.
I sure hope they were not US Army. And if they were, I sincerely hope the responsible parties are brought to account.
One report was that they were the Ft.Rucker Police.
|
ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Mar 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
rscottie wrote: ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp wrote: Why are you so worried
OK, either you are a troll and I'm silly for taking the bait, or you are sadly delusional about the role of our government.
Either way, I suggest you do a little research and then you'll be able to answer that question for yourself. I suggest you start with what our founding fathers thought about standing armies and work your way forward. You could even look at issues the citizens (subjects) had with the Kings and troops in Medieval Times.
Then, after your learning session, we'll see if you can still ask that question with a straight...oops, ok, a smiling face!
terrorist
|
paramedic70002
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 07:47 pm |
|
cvickers wrote: American Rattlesnake wrote: I have looked off and on all day for confirmation that the US Army sent soldiers to Samson, Alabama and all I have found were two photos at Reuters with captions that asserted the same.
I'm not saying it is not true, but I would like some confirmation. It is possible that they are, indeed, National Guardsmen. Unit insignia are indistinct in the photos.
I sure hope they were not US Army. And if they were, I sincerely hope the responsible parties are brought to account.
One report was that they were the Ft.Rucker Police. Looks like POLICE vests, no rifles, but why would civilian LEOs be wearing ACU gear with desert boots and berets? Or do they use MPs for base security?
|
jmlefler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 02:32 pm |
|
Another report, but with Reuter's photo
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206
|
SFCRetired
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 286 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 04:23 pm |
|
jmlefler wrote: Another report, but with Reuter's photo
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206
After having read that, I would suspect that a commander is, at the least, going to be relieved of his command. I would expect that an officer would know better; especially a military police officer.
I would really like to know who requested the troops.
All that said, I can well imagine that those tiny police departments were completely overwhelmed in the aftermath of those shootings and were desperate for any type of assistance.
What is strange to me is why a local sheriff or police chief cannot deputize law-abiding citizens to help in that sort of situation.
|
cvickers
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | Orlando, Fl., USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
SFCRetired wrote: jmlefler wrote: Another report, but with Reuter's photo
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206
After having read that, I would suspect that a commander is, at the least, going to be relieved of his command. I would expect that an officer would know better; especially a military police officer.
I would really like to know who requested the troops.
All that said, I can well imagine that those tiny police departments were completely overwhelmed in the aftermath of those shootings and were desperate for any type of assistance.
What is strange to me is why a local sheriff or police chief cannot deputize law-abiding citizens to help in that sort of situation.
Local Law Enforcement & Sheriff Departments can require civilians to assist with law enforcement activities. But think about it. Just from the traffic stand point; would you want to be sitting in a traffic jam (this didn't happen in Samson) caused by a civilian who had never had any training in traffic enforcement/directing. Then think about it from the point of view of the family of the victim. Would you want an 'amature' directing who could or could not access a crime scene. When would you start complaining if the investigation got messed up-- and whose fault would you think it would be. You certainly wouldn't cut Law Enforcement a break because thay had 'civilians' working at the scenes.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 899 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 01:48 am |
|
quentusrex wrote: http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/2009/03/us-army-deploys-troops-to-alabama/
Can someone confirm/deny this?
Confirmed:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29759776/
Everyone should give their reps a real earful over this. First the national guard wants to conduct a large scale "cordon and search" in Iowa during a training exercise, which uses citizen actors in the town while they look for a supposed "gun dealer", then the attorney general tells us he wants to restrict our right to keep and bear arms by putting the "assault weapons" ban back on and thereby essentially banning everything with a detachable magazine, and announces that we need to do this to help Mexico of all places. Personally I don't give a damn about Mexico and we should not have to surrender any of our rights in the name of a foreign government. And now the US army patrolling an American town?
what is next--re-education camps where dissenters and "activists" are sent to be re-educated to accept the official line?
Please everyone give your Congressmen a call/email and let them know how you feel and then ask your friends to do the same and to pass the word on.
|
Current time is 12:39 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
