Thursday, March 12, 2009

U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama

"U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama after a shooting spree March 10, 2009. " REUTERS/Mark Wallheiser [caption as it is on Reuters website].

There is an alarming trend of increasingly using active duty military in "support" or "observation" roles to assist civilian law enforcement. In this case, it appears military police from Ft. Rucker were brought in after the gunman was dead, to assist in cordoning off the crime scene area(s) in support of the civilian police.

Our position is that the U.S. military should not be involved in any capacity in local law enforcement, not even in a supposed "support" role.

First of all, this was a local criminal matter only, not a federal matter. No part of the federal government has any jurisdiction. Thus, merely calling it "support" and not law enforcement does not cure the threshold problem of the federal government involving itself in the internal police of a state.

Under the original understanding of the Founders, the federal government would have no authority to act regarding such intrastate matters. What the American people
consented to by ratifying the Constitution of 1787 was a dual sovereignty system, granting the new national government only certain, enumerated, and limited powers, with no general police power (a general law-making power to pass laws for the health, safety, and welfare of the people). Only the States had such a general power, which they retained, as the debates over ratification make clear:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce …The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberty, and property of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. - James Madison, Federalist 45
Under that original understanding, the FBI, for example (let alone federal military police!), would have no jurisdiction or grounds for being involved in a local crime. Unfortunately, that concept of a federal government limited to few and defined powers, exercised principally on external objects, such as war, has been flipped on its head (through artful court decisions "interpreting" the commerce clause), such that we now have over us a federal government that claims all powers not expressly and specifically forbidden, and the power to make laws over us in all cases whatsoever.

Secondly, calling such involvement "support" is a very thin fig leaf to cover what is clearly a use of the military in a law enforcement capacity, in violation of
Posse Comitatus. The military police were used to man blockades.

If the civilian police need additional help, they should look first to the militia of their own state, such as the select militia now known as the Alabama National Guard, under the command of that state's governor.

This increased use of the military in domestic roles is especially alarming in light of the permanent assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team to a domestic "support" role, under command of U.S. Army North (NORTHCOM). That brigade combat team includes heavy armor, artilery, and mechanized infantry elements.

Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia entry:

On October 1, 2008, the US Army announced that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command (NORTHCOM), as an on-call federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

This marks the first time an active U.S. Army unit will be given a dedicated assignment to NORTHCOM, where it is stated they may be "called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) attack." These soldiers will also learn how to use non-lethal weapons designed to "subdue unruly or dangerous individuals" without killing them, and also includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and beanbag bullets.[5] However, the "non-lethal crowd control package [...] is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S. [...]".[5]

The US military will have around 20,000 uniformed personnel in this role in the United States by 2011, specifically trained and equipped to assist state and local government, respond to major disasters, terrorist attack, other major public emergencies.[6] This shift in strategy is a result of recommendations by Congress and outside experts.[6] This response capability is not new, but now accompanies a permanent assignment of forces to NORTHCOM.

All of the above is the proper responsibility of the National Guard, under the command of a state's governor, not the regular Army.

Our constitutional republic is being transformed into something entirely incompatible with the principles upon which this nation was founded.


Oath Keepers.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The shootings in AL, were a quick event spread over a wide area. It was a matter of hours.

If the Governor calls out the Guard, the muster takes several hours or even days to happen.
If the Governor requested the MP's - they could be on the streets within an hour. Question: Can Army troops be placed under the command of a Governor?
(My ship in the Navy was placed under the operational command of the USCG, while investigating suspected drug runners.)

Yes, it is a scary sight to see MP's on a US street, but the Guard has MP's, too.

Anonymous said...

Police State here we come!

straightarrow said...

Those are not American soldiers. They may have been born here, they may have enlisted in our military, but do not call them American soldiers. An American soldier would have refused to betray his oath to the constitution. These are just hired muscle.

Anonymous said...

God Bless all law enforcement and soldiers who refuse to follow illegal orders!

Anonymous said...

We are forever indebted to all of these brave patriots. God Bless you all.

The Hatdiva said...

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.


545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are ag ainst deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exi sts is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ...

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 peopl e, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... is up to you.

Ron Russell said...

I'm old enough to remember the invasion of Oxford, MS by some 17,000 federal troops. Sent there by a man who would not even send the first soldier to the beaches at the Bay of Pigs to help freedom fighters overthrow a communist dictator. Then a few short years later have that same man proclaimed a great president after the Cuban Missle Crisis. Which he caused by his inaction at the Bay of Pigs. Yes the military is often misused by those in power and it is a shame and , I might add---illegal. But the courts will never say so. I new to your blog, but will return. Was referred by Stogie at Saber Point. Visit me at Penny Patch. Drop me a comment and I'll give you a permanate link. Like what I see here.

Anonymous said...

PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart

Anonymous said...

An actual audio of Orly asking her question of Justice Roberts


The minute she mentioned BO's ineligibility - and as there was a murmur growing in the audience - Roberts stopped her or rather cut her off, and said he'd take a look at the doucments. He didn't want anyone to hear what she had to say...

http://www.spokesman.com/audio/2009/mar/15/roberts-question/

Click on the play button next to the audio embedded at the page at the top to hear the actual conversation between Orly and Justice Roberts when she asks her question

Also... this is an interesting video summarizing the movie The Obama Deception

Alex Jones film explanation on The Obama Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8tZ1WIEtD0


Please join Orly and millions and millions of Americans.


http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/17/to-greg-zoellerattorney-general-of-indiana.aspx

We have been sending out letters-faxes-emails and certified to all Inculding Justice Roberts and the rest.Obama is a FRAUD !