Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,247 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
“By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
If this doesn't raise up the hair on back of your neck, then nothing will.

New Department of Defense Rule Allows Military to Override Local Authorities - | Intellihub.com

Read it and weep, and then wonder why the news media isn't giving this one any attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
I don't think this would concern me as much as the growth of certian federal agencies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,914 Posts
Kinda makes you wonder if Benghazi, IRS-gate, AP-gate, F&F and the rest are the left hand of the magician that we are supposed to watch while the right hand does the truly heinous work. TSIGO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,914 Posts
It appears that POTUS now has the latitude to interpret any situation he wishes to engage the military against citizens.
There was a reason for Article 1, Section 8, #12. We ignore it at our own peril.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHEC724

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
From what I have read at this article and elsewhere, this isn't anything new. From the article:

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised.
What worries me more is the ability of military to operate on US soil AND:

filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,416 Posts
I'm not an attorney, but this new rule would seem to violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (despite the statement in the original link that it is "all but dead"). If nothing else it would seem that Congress would have to approve this to make it a valid exception to the law before it could be used. Very interesting indeed.

About U.S. Northern Command
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,369 Posts
Latest alert from the WH press room . . . "Incoming!" It's like watching a horse-drawn steam fire engine trying to put out a forest fire.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
I don't think this would concern me as much as the growth of certain federal agencies.
Growth in number of agents or just in power?

It appears that POTUS now has the latitude to interpret any situation he wishes to engage the military against citizens.
Just find a place from which to make "prior authorization impossible"?

Latest alert from the WH press room . . . "Incoming!" It's like watching a horse-drawn steam fire engine trying to put out a forest fire.
Where there's smoke there's fire?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Ask yourself why the rules have changed all of a sudden.

Personally, I don't want a Muslim interpreting anything for me.
Personally, I don't want someone of any faith interpreting anything for me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,682 Posts
What is the saying? "Fascinating if true..?"
Nice wordy story but they leave out three key ingredients.
1) They refer to a regulation changing the United States code. No where do they specify which section by title and section.
2) They never say who it was that allegedly changed this regulation.
3) They never say when anyone claims that the military would ever have the authority to change federal laws which is exactly what they say was done here.

If anyone can tell me the specific section of 10 U.S.C. 18 that was changed to allow what they are claiming I would love to read it.
Unless someone can point to some verifiable facts I think the story is just literary fertilizer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Indeed, RIP Posse Comitatus Act.

Some may say that it's "outdated" in today's world, but let's not forget WHY it was enacted. In President Lincoln's time many members of Congress thought he had exceeded his authority during the Civil War by suspending habeas corpus and creating military courts with jurisdiction over civilians. I do not see this being too far off the situation we are approaching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,296 Posts
Posse Comitatus (18 USC § 1385) was a law passed in 1878 in response to the abuse of citizens by federal troops occupying the states of the former Confederacy during the period known as Reconstruction. In exchange for their votes in favor of the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, Southern Senators received the support of Republican Senators for the Posse Comitatus Act requiring federal troops to withdraw from southern garrisons, thus ending Reconstruction.

Barack Hussein Obama is disregarding this act and the applicable provisions of the Constitution in order to continue training the United States military to participate in purposefully undefined “emergency” situations within the borders of the United States.

The number of uniformed soldiers assigned to this duty continues to increase annually and the force is estimated to reach a strength of 20,000. This massive force will all be trained and equipped to “subdue unruly or dangerous individuals” and “help with civil unrest and crowd control.” As usual, these directives are vague and could be applied to any number of scenarios. Furthermore, the critical question to be asked in light of such an arrangement is who will decide who is unruly or dangerous? Whoever is appointed the arbiter of such things will of necessity be feared as he will have 20,000 troops on alert and ready to quell these civil disturbances.

Who are the unruly or dangerous individuals?

Are they the Trayvon Martins? Or the Nidal Hassans? Or how about the Occupy Wall Street Crowd?

More than likely it will be Tea Party Members. After all, Pelosi called them public enemy #1 and they used the IRS to target Tea Party Members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^^ What Patti said^^^^^^^^^^^
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,068 Posts
Welcome to The New World Order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Exactly as mentioned.

I am tired of the writing on the wall being hand-waved away as, "black helicopter conspiracy theory crap." Just like Fast and Furious was called "conspiracy" theory until leaked. The list goes on and on. Our government is far from saintly and it appears the law-abiding citizens will soon be deemed criminals by the stroke of a pen.

"It can't happen here, it won't happen here..."
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top