Sam's is your source for Hatteras and Cabo Yacht parts.

Enter a part description OR part number to search the Hatteras/Cabo parts catalog:

Email Sam's or call 1-800-678-9230 to order parts.

Posse Comitatus - Realtime Example

spartonboat1

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
2,494
Hatteras Model
43' DOUBLE CABIN (1970 - 1984)
To those purists demanding boat only posts, please avert your eyes.

This is related to a very recent deployment of US troops to a domestic situation in Alabama and the very strong concern expressed that this deployment was in violation of US law. There are explicit cites of law in the text below, esp. re: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

I posted in the in the clear text, since links sometimes are taken down.
======================================
The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.

“On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson,” Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.

“The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander’s inquiry--directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey.”

TRADOC is the headquarters command for Ft. Rucker.

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also determine whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” Perritt added. “Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.”

Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”--and the department was glad for the help.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls,” Stromenger said. “They weren’t here to police, let me make that clear. They were here to help with traffic and to control the crime scene--so people wouldn’t trample all over (it).”

Stromenger said the town needed help--calls had gone out to all police departments in the area.

“We only have a five-man police department,” he told CNSNews.com. “We had officers from all surrounding areas helping out. There were a lot of streets to be blocked off and there had to be someone physically there to block them off. That’s what these MPs were doing. I don’t think they were even armed. The troops helped keep nosy people away.”

But Stromenger said it wasn’t the Samson Police Department that called for the troops.

“I don’t know who called Fort Rucker. But someone did. They wouldn’t have been able to come if someone hadn’t,” he added.

Under Whose Authority?

The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley -- or by the request of President Obama, as required by law.

When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor’s office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley's spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.

No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House--or the Defense Department.

Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“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,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added.

In addition, there is the Insurrection Act of 1808, as amended in 2007, (Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code) under which the president can authorize troops “to restore order and enforce the laws of the United States” in an insurrection.

“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection,” the law states.

In 2007, Congress expanded the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as situations for which the president can authorize troops, provided that “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Congress has been clear that the use of U.S. troops for civilian police purposes is forbidden.

“One of the statutes explicitly says that military brigs can’t even be used to detain domestic criminals,” Rittgers said. “It really is supposed to be a black and white line.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, would have prosecuting authority, if any violation is deemed to have occurred. The Justice Department did not comment for this story.

Ft. Rucker, located in Southern Alabama, is the home of Army Aviation.
 
I don't know...when I was stationed at Ft Benning Ga we were "deployed" to help look for a local civilian boy who had gone missing from his home. We searched through the thick wooded areas for several miles surrounding his house and he was found the next day. Never occurred to us that we were doing anything but a GOOD thing and I'm sure it wasn't ordered by the gov or president at the time. Seems to me that if local officials ask for help as above or in the Alabama situation, the military is a good place to ask. Why should they not help if asked and it does not interfere with the actual military mission?

Obviously the MPs were ordered there by military command at some level in response to a civilian request and if I was a higher level commander, I'd be saying "thanks" to those MPs and the commander who ordered it for supporting the local community.

Now, if there was NO local civilian request for help, that's a totally different issue.
 
This is a situation that is balancing on a razors edge. One side fears the military involvement and the other view is that this was the quickest military force available at the time.

It was a five man police department, the intel was unclear if it was a lone gunman or a group, there was no SWAT available.

I would say if it was my home town I would applaud the sheriff, consider if there was a target intended of a school, mall, theater and there was only a couple of officers available, so thats how I see it, it could have been much worse and I say this is getting blown out of proportion.
 
Military commanders are trained in the implications of Posse Comitatus. The use of soldiers, either active component or National Guard, is very specifically prescribed. I cannot imagine a military commander knowingly deploying soldiers to provide support as described in the article, unless the inexperience of a junior-level supervisor was overcome with an urgent unofficial request for help, unvalidated by proper authority. Somebody seriously 'screwed up'!!!
Wow, ouch, this is going to create a serious change in someone's career. Albeit of probably good intentions - this is a huge error in judgement. My experience as an Army Inspector General reminds me we only have half of 'the truth' available, the other 'half' will be bourne out in the investigation which will follow. So let's not rush-to-judgement, although outward appearances are ugly at this point.
The process for requesting military assistance, Governor's declaring an emergency, etc., is quite specific and prescriptive. All senior Guard commanders, state's Attorneys General, etc., are well advised in these issues. This has to be a case of junior-level people acting without thinking.
 
We are a nation of laws. Where would we be without lawyers?
 
If someone is prosecuted for this the should be an insurection
 
I still say it was better to show restrained force was available than to have nothing and have bitter consequences.

America is having more than its usual share of multiple killings lately, just one untrained individual in the right place can kill dozens of people in minutes, this could have been much worse, it could have evolved into an unimaginative scenario such as an individual driving a loaded fuel truck, it could have been a heavily armed drug gang having turf warfare, and also a worse case scenario something of terrorists performing an organized group attack upon heavily populated areas.

Except for the larger cities almost no township could control or suppress trained terrorists that are on a suicide mission.
 
I have to say...when I was in the infantry we trained constantly with the weapons we used. Who would I rather have between me and serious bad guys, local police who qualify once a year with a hand gun or people who actually KNOW how to use serious weapons because they do use them regularly?

Heck, when I was an infantry rifle platoon leader in Vietnam, we had to go to the rifle range after returning to base camp from any field mission that took longer than two weeks. Yep, more than two weeks out exchanging fire with the bad guys and we had to go to rifle range and shoot at paper targets as a division requirement! I'm not saying I understand that requirement but I'm just saying that the infantry gets a LOT of weapon training. If some bad guy is shooting, I'd like the guys shooting back to be good at it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
38,144
Messages
448,580
Members
12,481
Latest member
mrich1

Latest Posts

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom