Pentagon Deploying 20,000 Troops In U.S.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Artile 1 section 9 - not article 9

Section 9

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Right - I thought you might mean that but figured it's better to ask and make sure

So the founding fathers purposefully allowed the Gubmint to suspend habeus corpus when required....so are you saying the conspiracy goes back to them??

Or are you pointing out to CT's that they are not quite as solidly protected by the constitution as they seem to think they are - ie there is constitutional precedent for what they fear may happen?

Pretty crazy stuff. The big question is will any American citizens actually DO something about this? For years I've been reading posts on this site, and it just seems that we all know what's happeneing but do NOTHING about it. Maybe it's time we do.

Really guys, nothing to worry about the nat guard has been doing this for ten + years now.. we aren't going to do any thing we are not already doing go back a few pages and read a more in depth response if you like. Its nothing new and has nothing to do with civil unrest

Originally posted by elementofthenight
Pretty crazy stuff. The big question is will any American citizens actually DO something about this? For years I've been reading posts on this site, and it just seems that we all know what's happeneing but do NOTHING about it. Maybe it's time we do.

do something about WHAT??

20,000 of the million service personel istationed in the USA getting trained to work with local authorities in case of emergency?

I think they shuold stand shoulder-to-shoulder and applaud the Govt actually being pro-active in advance of anything happening, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Article 1 section 9 goes hand in hand with Posse Commitatus. The Founding Fathers new there would be a possibility of something occuring that would need a unique approach.

Its a built in safeguard so to speak - The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

When applied to this topic, which is what im limiting it to, its in line with the intent of the law. What the federal government is saying is in todays day and time, its not out of the realm of possibility for something to occur (nuclear / checmical / biological incident).

If local authorities are not able to deal with it, and state resources are not enough to deal with it, then you are looking at something that could pose danger to surrounding states, which makes it a federal probelm (also in line with the constitution when disagreements between states arise).

In this topic, anything in the affected areas will be considered non usable (until they can be tested and cleared).

As an example - I live in Joplin MO. Back in May we had a F-5 tornado rip through the city. We lost all power, 1 of our 2 hospitals was completely destroyed and had to be completely evacuated. Within the first hour state wide mutual aid request was activated (EMS / Fire / Police) from across the state respond.

Joplin is a small city, population about 50k. Jasper and Newton counties (contains joplin) is about 100k +/-. After the first day, that request moved out of state, and by the time it was over with we had law enforcement from 4 states in addition to federal law enforcement (postal police, FBI, ATF etc).

This was an F-5 tornado, a city of 50k, and about 1500 law enforcement present to help mantain law and order. No electricity, the 911 center for joplin was completely destroyed, Newton countys was damaged. Cell towers were destroyed, roads impassible, 1 hoispital destroyed, and the other over its max capacity.

I bring this up, again, because its was only an F-5 tornado - lasted about 45 seconds and was gone.

To those who have issues with Federal resources being used at state level.. Read the above and think about it. Thats just for a tornado that lasted 45 seconds. Once the tornado passed, emergency services went into action.

Now... remove tornado and replace with nuke / chem / bio incdident. There is absolutely no way a city, let alone a state would be equipped to handle an incident of that magnitude.

An F-5 tornado - mutual aid agreements invoked, law enforcement from 4 surrounding states, police responses from all over missouri, national guard units.. Just for a 45 second tornado...

I cant imagine why people would find issue with the federal government being proactive and preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best.

Huh interesting should be an iteresting read. Thanks ats

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Article 1 section 9 goes hand in hand with Posse Commitatus. The Founding Fathers new there would be a possibility of something occuring that would need a unique approach.

Pssee Comitatus act came 100 years later - after the Civil War, not after the War of independance - they have no real link to each other except they are American!

Its a built in safeguard so to speak - The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

What is? the ability to suspend HC when required? the PC Act? the constitution??

When applied to this topic, which is what im limiting it to, its in line with the intent of the law. What the federal government is saying is in todays day and time, its not out of the realm of possibility for something to occur (nuclear / checmical / biological incident).




I cant imagine why people would find issue with the federal government being proactive and preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best.

Ah - right - I see your point - and I agree.

these are not additional troops - they are "just" part of the services alrady deployed in the USA, who aer beign specifically tasked to help with emergency situations - as you say it is hte Fed's actually being pro-active.

And I'm pretty suer teh Fed's were criticised for not reacting fast enought to Katrina werent' they? Well being able to react quickly means being prepared before hand - which means training troops if yuo ever expect troops to be used.....

Long response - sorry

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Pssee Comitatus act came 100 years later - after the Civil War, not after the War of independance - they have no real link to each other except they are American!

Quite the contrary.. The founding fathers were scared to death of a standing military (hence the 3rd amendment). Everything they worked on was a Federal level view, while trying to balance that with the states own sovereignty. The thought of a standing federal military took them back to good ole King George..

The next concern popped up with law enforcement. The fact we modeled our law enforcement system, again, off of England, forced another flash back to the direction our nation was going in. The rules were in place before the civil war. President Lincolns actions during the civil war, namely suspending habeous corpus, etc was ruled by SCOTUS unconstitutional.

Thats what gave rise to the Posse Commitatus act (well that and the aftermath of the civil war when Union troops were essentially occupying the south.

It was the use of troops in a law enforcement function that sparked the problem, it was the removal of the judicial branch as oversight (judge, jury etc). The system they used was the equivelant of a drum head. A partial continuation of Lincolns actions can be seen in the more recent SCOTUs cases of Hamdi and Hamden V. Rumsfeld.

The overall intent was to never have a standing army patrolling the streets, nor using them as police, judge, jury or executioner when it comes to civilians. The intent was to keep civilian control aat all times, and we see this with the President being Commanderin Chief and COngress having control of the purse strings.

So while the Posse Commitatus act did come later, it was not a new concept. The court rulings reinforced the 3rd amendment, in addition to civilian leadership of the military, and the rule of civilian law above all else.

Sometimes when politicians try to get creative, case law is a result...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
What is? the ability to suspend HC when required? the PC Act? the constitution??

All of it... Our government has checks and balances against each other in an effort to prevent one branch from becoming so powerful it makes the other 2 branches insignificant. So in addition to checks and balances built into the Constitution, the people are the ultimate check against the government.

If you look at the list you made, you will find that each one is designed in some manner to protect the individual. * - Suspension of Habeous Corpus in times of rebellion, invasion, the public safey may require it.
* - Posse Commitatus - prohibits federal military from civilian law enforcement functions, unless suspended by congress.
* - The Constitution - Seperation of powers / 3rd amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, etc etc etc.

They are all designed to work in conjunction with each other.
You are arrested by the military -

Legal recourse
- violation of posse commitatus
- violation of the 4th amendment
- violation of habeous corpus

If one legal argument fails, there are some more to choose from. Our founding Fathers were a bit more intelligent than some give them credit for. To create a document that has survived this long is amazing in my opinion. To have crafted a document tht places the people above all, checks and balances between branches of government, and more than a few legal options for redress of greivances....

To create a document that protects the people from the government, while at the same time allowing the government to protect the people... How many people would ahve thought that up 300 years ago?

Hence, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In lamens terms we can use the story of the doctor who broke into the pharmacy for needed medicine -
A life is saved, a window broke.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ah - right - I see your point - and I agree.

these are not additional troops - they are "just" part of the services alrady deployed in the USA, who aer beign specifically tasked to help with emergency situations - as you say it is hte Fed's actually being pro-active.

Exactly... As a Police Officer, there are many calls I take where I am by myself. On a few of those occasions when I have asked for a backup unit, I have had officers from other jurisdictions show up. Even though they are outside their jurisdiction, it does not mean they cannot take action to assist me.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And I'm pretty suer teh Fed's were criticised for not reacting fast enought to Katrina werent' they? Well being able to react quickly means being prepared before hand - which means training troops if yuo ever expect troops to be used.....

edit on 25-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Katrina was a disaster but not because of FEMA. The issues with Katrina can be traced directly back to Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. They were warned, and then essentially begged to order mandatory evacuations, which they declined until about 14 hours prior to landfall. By then though it was to late.

FEMA is not a fron line entity, nor is it designed to be one. FEMA is an umbrella organization that coordinates about 22 different federal agencies and their resources. If a disaster occurs in a state, the local authorites request thte govenor to declare a state of emergency / disaster. This opens up state / local resources for use. If thats not enough the Govenor makes a request to the President for a federal declaration of emergency / disaster. Once that is done, FEMA is activated.

They, FEMA, interfaces with SEMA (State emergency management). The state gives FEMA a shopping list of needed resources (food / water / manpower / supplies / specialists / etc). FEMA finds the resources and gets them into the affcted areas.

Its still incumbent of local government to lead those resources to where they are most needed, since its the locals, and not FEMA, who has a better lay of the land.

Contrary to popular belief, FEMA nor federal military units can just show up and take over.

The only exception to that is in the case of a nuclear / chemical / biological incident. I for one would rather see 20k trained and educated soldiers coming to assist, than have absolutely nothing at all. We had a massiv militarry response in Louisianna, as well as here in Joplin (about 400 MP's).

Guess what - No permanent presence, no martial law, no coup, no rounding people up etc.
In Joplin we did have a curfew.. The manner in which that was handled was pretty impressive. The curfew extended only into designated areas (heavily damaged). People who lived in those areas were the only ones permitted to remain in those areas after 9pm. The curfew was placed on people who were trying to enter those areas to assist.

There was no problems coming up on checkpoints, since the roads were barely passible. The police / military were professional and helpful.

Why did it work so well?

Common sense exercised by all parties, from local state and federal government, to all the different emergency agencies, to the military and finally, to the people who not only lived in joplin, but people who came from outside of joplin to help.

Communication among everyone was key, and since everyone was on the same page, it worked very well.
Training was key as well, with responding emergency servives as well as people who had training in certain areas would show up, be sent to one area to check in, they would be assigned to a team and an area and off they went.

People have nothing to worry about with the FEderal Government training 20k troops in an effort to be prepared for something we hope will never happen.

As a few others pointed out, would you rather see 20k US troops, or 20k foreign troops because we werent prepared?

We complain the Federal Government wants to help anyone but its own people. When they decided to prep to help their own people, people complain about it.....

Its ok for people to be suspicious of the Government... However not to the point of paranoia that would result in lost lives because people see the government, and not the nuke / chem / or bio incident, as the threat.

reply to post by jaycen420


God the Father will destroy the plot to overthrow currencies.

If you think this plan of the government will be complete, think again!!!!! God will stop this, and the evil one knows it.

All things are unraveling at this time....from Merdoc down. Watch it all fall apart.....pray.
See the link...all is told here. Jesus is coming, in the warring this year to save souls that the evil one is steeling from God. Prepare your harts for this in the next few months.

www.thewarningsecondcoming.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes, it flies directly in the face of Posse Comitatus, but when has a little thing like breaking the law ever even given the government pause before? Bush raped Posse Comitatus, and Obama won't even bat an eye. We've already seen the end-runs he's willing to employ against pesky laws.

No this doesnt violate Posse Commitatus in the least.

Normally, I find myself in agreement with you. this time, not. I suppose that if we all saw things the same way, some of us would be completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Article 1 section 9 - read it please.

I've read it, numerous times. Which provision do you allege allows for the violation of Posse Comitatus? I'll make it easy, and quote it:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Once done, look up the Posses Commitatus act and read it please.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of Federal troops for law enforcement purposes on other than federal Property. To use Federal troops for law enforcement purposes on other than federal property is a clear violation.

Posse Comitatus Act:

The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[5]

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

Now, it's also true that in 2006 the Bush administration gutted the Posse Comitatus Act with the following:

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122 ), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[6]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[7]

But in 2008, those changes were repealed in their entirety, and the original text of the Act was restored. The only exceptions are in operations during a declared insurrection, under the Insurrection Act, and during a nuclear emergency in the event of a release of nuclear materials. In the absence of those exceptions, deployment as law enforcement is a violation.

and Finally, you guys are going off the deepend. No troops are deployed anywhere. All this was is an effort to plan for a possibility of a nuke / bio / chem incident in the US.

What people are failing to realize is that troops are on the move all the time, and especially during the summer months when Guard and Reserve units attend to their summer camps,

I love how an article discussing preparedness has turned into a martial law is imminent thread.

You guys really need to quit earmongering and educate yoursleves.

Any actual deployment would be a violation of Posse Comitatus. These reported movements are not an actual deployment, they are just normal movements. Every year, starting in May, the same reports of troop deployments are reported in the same source as the OP cited, and so far not a thing has come of it. Given the reports of the intent to violate Possee Comitatus, it behooves people to be watchful, but I have to agree that the perennial reports of an actual deployment, in the absence of such, is nothing more than fear mongering.

It's the story of "the Boy Who Cried Wolf". If it ever actually happens, folks will be taken by surprise, because they've gotten worn out with all the false reports every year previous.

reply to post by jaycen420


Good Heads up for all of us Jaycen!! Thank you. Now, I also remember an earlier article here on ATS describing the fact that many underground shelters have been secretely built throughout the U.S. mainly in the midwest, but all over the country. I also remember reading that these shelters have been filled with supplies for thousands of people (maybe already selected with a ticket in) for up to 6-12 months of food, medical etc.

So this would possibly tie-in with the deployment of 20,000 troops to fight back the millions who won't be able to access these underground survival shelters in the event of a world catastrophe of some type...you can name a few already, terrorism, asteroid, polar shift, solar flare and on and on. Thanks again, just information to make you think, and realizet that there is a lot going on right here in the U.S. that is secret and we and uninformed while false flags are sent up. Peace and Love!!!

Here I found on video describing the underground bunkers originally reported by Jesse Ventura realityslapnow.com...

This clip shows additional distrubing activities that are secretly being deployed by our gov't, this state over $1.3B alone for bunkers and MRE(ready to eat meal) www.cracked.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Long response - sorry

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Pssee Comitatus act came 100 years later - after the Civil War, not after the War of independance - they have no real link to each other except they are American!

Quite the contrary.. The founding fathers were scared to death of a standing military (hence the 3rd amendment). Everything they worked on was a Federal level view, while trying to balance that with the states own sovereignty. The thought of a standing federal military took them back to good ole King George..

The next concern popped up with law enforcement. The fact we modeled our law enforcement system, again, off of England, forced another flash back to the direction our nation was going in. The rules were in place before the civil war. President Lincolns actions during the civil war, namely suspending habeous corpus, etc was ruled by SCOTUS unconstitutional.

Thats what gave rise to the Posse Commitatus act (well that and the aftermath of the civil war when Union troops were essentially occupying the south.

nothing "essentially" about it - they WERE occupying the South - the PC act was part of a compromise to fix a stalled 1876 election to get Hayes elected, & had f-a to do with anything Lincoln had done.

As I said - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the founding fathers or the constitution, it was not part of the division of powers and was not passed in order to sanctify that division - it was passed as a pragmatic measure to get someone elected president - it was, in effect, almost corrupt, in that it was a political deal to get power!

How much area can 20k troops really cover? I seriously doubt our own troops would "police" us, if you want a perfect example just look at the Egypt during their revolution. Their troops were largely passive.

reply to post by wshadow1
oh you mean like this nifty article? ok so it's from CNN but then who would make a story up right?www.cnn.com... from the link

Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say

so does Boehner have a secret terror group ready to strike the US? or is it some other far right group? from the link

(CNN) -- The threat of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's fatal bombing and assault in Norway is significant and growing, analysts said Monday.

here it comes are you ready? no really? if you read on, do you " browse" this type of site? wonder if the site would be listed??? not that it would be, but then this is TPTB we are talking about er START that is

The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START.

and you thought this would not happen.

Originally posted by zero1020
How much area can 20k troops really cover? I seriously doubt our own troops would "police" us, if you want a perfect example just look at the Egypt during their revolution. Their troops were largely passive.

ignorant way of thinking.

To contain a complete block, Send one UAV. That UAV can kill you, + give detailed info about the area, wich makes to operation safer and less intens for the soldiers.

And why wouldn't they police you. What do you think will happen when America goes Default on debt?

Banks are going bust, people are running wild on the streets. No food, No money. A perfect job for the Army

reply to post by Torquil
would you feel the same way if say sent er ordered to the US to prevent/ stop civil unrest with the use of deadly force? just asking

I am a new member to this site but this is kind of old news. I remember hearing about this a couple years ago.

This is probably completely irreverent but I have noticed within the past year many black helicopters flying over my house on a daily bases. I live in south central KY so there are not any military bases around my location. Every couple of hours at least one will fly over my house and yesterday at around 12:30p 5 flew over my house.

reply to post by nenothtu
keep saying no they wont, till they come a knocking and then keep saying, no their not here at my door, keep saying that as they hall you off to a "FEMA camp". No their not here and this is not real, neither is this for it is just a blank page that does not exist bordc.org... from the link

Section 1076
Major changes:

Changed the title of the law from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act"
Specifies situations in which the President can invoke martial law (natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order). These had not been specified before.
Spells out the President's obligation to inform Congress within 14 days when he determines to exercise the authority, and every 14 days thereafter, during the exercise of the authority. This had also not been specified under the Insurrection Act.

Compare the previous Insurrection Act to the current "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act" for yourself. Use the following links:

HR 5122 Section 1076 is the Defense Appropriations Bill in which changes to the Insurrection Act appear. Choose the ENR (enrolled) version of the bill.
Insurrection Act—See sections 331-335.

[do not worry the cops, the feds, and the mil will only use, as they do now, blanks no lead will or can be used when making an arrest as it is now when the cops use "deadly force it is to scare you no one has died, it is MSM spin and TPTB dread.] if you can read this then it is real. the part that is in the [] is not. for here is the link that explains the LAW as it is applied codes.lp.findlaw.com... and the link for the notes as applied by law codes.lp.findlaw.com...
so yes the POTUS can and does have the right to use the US armed forces in a national or state event that needs civil peace keeping, ie replacing the local or state police with US armed forces.

Straight out of the gate without a read even , im suggesting that 20,000 troops is way not enough to fight an internal war on the homeland against ones own 300,000,000 population . So what are they for .

Maybe just to help out in times of natural disasters .
Cheers

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Right... Are you saying the South was not in Rebelion? The challenge was brought during reconstructrion, and the last confederate state was re-admitted to the union on January 26, 1870 - Virginia.

Setting the rebellion issue aside though, you are correct it was a political maneuver. However, it was a Congressioanl Act, which is in line with A1S9. Since it is a congressioanl act, it can be changed by Congress or the courts on challenge.

As I said, PC is an extension of article 1 section 9.

Additional by Congressional Act -
18 USC 831 Section E

(e)(1) The Attorney General may also request assistance from the Secretary of Defense under this subsection in the enforcement of this section. Notwithstanding section 1385 of this title, the Secretary of Defense may, in accordance with other applicable law, provide such assistance to the Attorney General if—

(3) Assistance under this section may include—
(A) use of personnel of the Department of Defense to arrest persons and conduct searches and seizures with respect to violations of this section; and

(B) such other activity as is incidental to the enforcement of this section, or to the protection of persons or property from conduct that violates this section.

Legal mumbo jumbo aside, this is what the article / press release actually states (The op source leaves out quite a bit).

The Washington Post - Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

A few points -
There will be 3 ready reaction groups that can be delpoyed to assist local government / law enforcement.
The main focus of these groups is NOT active law enforcement functions, but security.
Of the 3 groups, only 1 is made up of active duty personell.
The remaining 2 groups are spread throughout the United States and are comprised of members of - wait for it.... wait for it... State guard units.

The ACLU and several other groups who have monitored this plan have expressed concern, but not specifically over posses commitatus. Their concern is the possibility of executive authority, not the use of military units during nuke / chem / bio incidents.

18 USC 1835

§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(Added Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 18(a), 70A Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 86–70, § 17(d), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

The part people seem to be overlooking is highlighted / underlined -
"or Act of Congress"


Also, we have seen it used in the early 1990's during the LA riots.

As I said, I get the concern people have, however I think its being blown way out of proportion. The pentagon has been above board with everyone, including the ACLU, about the intent and reasons behind this plan.

Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there was an incident in 2009 where local law enforcement requested the assistance of military units during a manhint for a guy who killed 11 people. The active duty military base sent 22mps and an officer to assist.

When it was all said and done, from a civilian law aspect, there was no violation of local state or federal law since the military was acting under the authority of the local law enforcement. From a Military aspect, the Office of the Inspector General found the actions taken by the military, namely assisting local law enforcement, was in violation of posses commitatus.

However, common sense prevailed. A reminder / remedial training went out about military and law enforcement functions. The officer who approved the request recevied a non punitive letter of reprimand.

250 +/- years and we still have civilian leadership. If the government was ever going to go crackers and attempt a coup, it would have occured by now. The "longer" the government waits to "take over" the more people they are going to face who not only have weapons, but military and law enforcement training.

People need to stop fear mongering and guessing on motives.. Read the article and see for yourselves as to what this is all about. If you want more info contact the ARMY PIO and ask.

Also, Bush had 2 specific incidents where the question of posse commitatus came in. The first was shortly after 9/11. Intelligence had located people of intrest in New York. Bush toyed with the idea of using military instead of federal / state / local law enforcement.

His advisors told him no, bad joo joo, and so it went to the FBI.

Katrina was the second incident. Bush was upset the Govenor / Mayor were not doing enough to move things along prior to and just after. His frustration grew to the level of having words with both the Govenor and Mayor. When that did not work he talked to his advisors on how to get more troops into the area to assist.

Since the Govenor refused the request to federalize her national guard units, the only option Bush had left was to declare Louisiana, specifically New Orleans in a state of rebellion. His advisors explained what the legal outcome of that action would be (supreme court not looking favorably on it) among other issues as well.

There is a huge difference bwteen sending troops to assist, and sending troops to seize.