Posse Comitatus Act

Wingnut · Jul 24, 2002

Jack Danforth always seemed to me a fairly intelligent Republican. I wonder how he feels about the details that have come out since his investigation. 

hey Chuck ... is it my imagination or did you just "support" a Repub ... who just happened to agree with you?? Hmm? /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif Of course, almost no conservative agrees with him ... another farcical investigation to bring "closure".

Aint't it funny how people who believe that governments are inherently evil believe just about anything about Waco .... and people who believe big brother is really your friend ignore any evidence that the feds toally screwed up Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian and other similar cases?

Big Brother is your friend! That's why they passed laws that help to keep drugs off the street. You know, the laws where, if they suspect that you took an aspirin back in '63, they get to confiscate everything including your first-born ... and never have to charge you ... just force you to court to try to reclaim your property. Yep ... Big Brother is a GOOD thing ... well, when it comes to taking money out of your pocket and putting it in the governments, anyway.

I very much fear ANY government ... Komandant Klinton, Dubya, or any others ... having even more control over what the military does. Look at the abuse of the "peacekeeping forces" by the UN ... no longer protecting anyone .. just trying to enforce policies enacted by unelected, unqualified "deep thinkers".

My vote is HE!! NO

Chuck52 · Jul 24, 2002

Wingnut,

If you page back up to the top of this thread, you'll see that I also don't want the military to function as police in this country. This whole Waco discussion was brought on by my saying I didn't trust Ashcroft. I wouldn't trust any politician with the power to use the military as police, but Ashcroft is my favorite whipping boy at the moment. By the way, I have learned more about Waco than I ever cared to know by this process, and I think we should go after Dick Armee, Tom Delay, and that other famous Texan....what's his name....who apparently feel that Clinton's sex life is worth more to investigate than the deliberate murder of 79 (80?) of their innocent fellow Texans at the hands of the Federal government.

Let us hope that the Waco disaster, which has been described as serving as an "excuse" for Timothy McVey's actions, doesn't somehow mutate into a "reason" for such actions. I don't think anyone on TBN would want that.

Chuck

Wingnut · Jul 24, 2002

Chuck,
I wouldn't trust any politician with the power to use the military as police 

but it seems like you have no problem with a politician you approve of using the quasi-military (check out the way the FBI dress and train) as "police" ... or at least her private security force (somewhat like Arafat).

Finally ... why is every defence of my favorite whipping boy always centered around sex? Seems like they were trying to impeach the creep because he was as untrustworthy as that other criminal - Nixon??
And ... if you insist on sex, I'll have to reiterate a previous comment about that being sexual harrassment that would have resulted in the president of Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson or K-Mart going to jail. We continually get force-fed this stuff about sexual harrassment and advised that anyone is a position of power over anyone else will be charged with sexual harrassment if there is any charge - or hint - of impropriety. Heck, I'm not even allowed to rest my hand on the shoulder of a co-worker (or employee) while talking to her ... expressly forbidden. Nor wink, nor tell dirty jokes (can you say "Supreme Court Justice") nor even think dirty thoughts. So we won't talk about actual sex ... no matter how you define "is".

You're scared of Ashcroft? I'm not .... at least he has shown me that he has morals .... and I'll trust one man with morals more than 12,000 do-gooder "it's for the children" liberals.

Ozarker · Jul 24, 2002

Citizens can DETAIN and supposedly use whatever
reasonable force was required to hold the person until a LEO
showed up.

The technical term for "detain using force" is arrest. When a citizen does it it's called a "Citizens Attest". In the military we called it "apprehension". No matter what word you use, it is all the same. You capture and hold a criminal suspect.

The difference between sworn officers and civilians is the protections we give sworn officers. If they arrest a suspect and it turns out to be the wrong person, they are protected from legal action against them as long as they acted in good faith. Civilians enjoy no such protection and would be charged with unlawful restraint or similar. That is to discourage vigilante actions while at the same time allowing people to act if they see a felony in progress.

There has to be some legal framework for
this to exist. My understanding is that there is no current
framework. Would such a plan scare the heck out of me? You bet. Do I think we need such a plan? You bet. Is there a danger that this law could be abused? You bet.

The framework to handle large disasters has been in place for a number of years, some since WW11. Remember the disaster drills in the 50's? What we can't do right now is medically treat large numbers of people after a biological attack. But isolating them will be a quick and easy.

What we really need to be doing right now, and we aren't, is educating the public about biological attacks and how to survive them. Bio attacks are survivable.

There is no need to make any changes to Posse Comitatus. We simply do not need the military to take up law enforcement duties during times of non-emergency. If an emergency occurs where it may be necessary for the military to assist local authority or take over from local authority, the President already has the power to declare a National Emergency and declare Martial Law. That can be done for the entire US or a specific area.

Chuck52 · Jul 24, 2002

Wingnut,

You believe Reno so used the FBI and ATF. I don't. You believe consensual relations which may or may not meet the definition of sex or foreplay to be sexual harassment. I don't. You trust Ashcroft either to separate his moral beliefs from the law, or to act upon moral beliefs which you agree with....I can't be sure which. Either way, I don't trust him. If you do believe in some of the more extreme interpretations of the Waco mess, and you have great faith in Ashcroft, and presumably at least some of the other conservative Republicans in both the House and Senate, why is it that these folks who spent many millions of our tax dollars pursuing what was originally supposed to be an investigation of a real estate scam don't seem to have the moral will to pursue this "murder" investigation?

How would you suggest the FBI dress and train? Or would you do away with all federal police-type agencies? Do they have no role you deem necessary? Would you have the armed services perform those tasks? They certainly have been subject to use in abusive ways. It is possible we might even agree about some of the abuses, though at best we'd probably not agree on how to score them.

I really don't think all conservatives dance nightly with the devil. Unfortunately, any time I find one I can think of as reasonable I am told he's not a "real" conservative. Notice, please, that I say, "that I can think of as reasonable", rather than simply "who is reasonable", because I do not want to seem to be defining reasonable for you....you unreasonable wretch! /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

Chuck

Charlie_Iliff · Jul 24, 2002

Yo - Roy:
I haven't reread every post, but don't remember seeing anyone disagreeing with your discomfort about expanding the use of the military. In fact, despite the length of the thread, I don't think the reason for that disquiet was better stated than in your original post.
But when you started the thread, did you have in mind resolving whether Ashcroft was a better choice than Reno, Bush than Clinton, Weaver than Horiuchi, conservative than liberal, taste better than less filling? /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
TBN scores again with a couple of days of heated agreement on the answer to the question originally posed.

Ozarker · Jul 24, 2002

Reno had no dealings with the ATF at all. They are not part of the Justice Department. I don't believe Reno used the FBI. She was too new and probably the least qualified person to be in charge of Justice. The FBI used her and she went along.

I have to say that when she stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for what happened, I was totally impressed with her. But it turned out to be nothing more than lip service. A few agents were disciplined, then promoted later. They should have been fired and prosecuted.

When discussing events such as Waco, you must keep the FBI and the ATF separated. They are not connected in any way and the FBI probably feels the same way about the ATF that I do. I know they did when my wife worked for the FBI and I hung out with a bunch of agents 30 years ago. The FBI was not responsible for the events that led up to the siege. They took over after the ATF blew it.

Same with Ruby Ridge. The ATF created the events that led up to the siege. The US Marshals took over when he failed to show up in court. The FBI didn't go in until the US Marshals blew it.

But.......in both cases it was the FBI HRT that took over and it is that part of the FBI that seems to be militarized and often acting outside the law.

RoyJackson · Jul 24, 2002

"But when you started the thread, did you have in mind resolving whether Ashcroft was a better choice than Reno, Bush than Clinton, Weaver than Horiuchi, conservative than liberal, taste better than less filling?"

No, the intent was, do we want the Posse Comitatus Act weakened?

I don't, in any way, shape or form. Doesn't have anything to do with Ashcroft (although I've a lot more respect for him then Reno).

But Ruby Ridge was on Bush Sr.'s watch...wasn't it?

I'm not trusting of government, liberal or conservative. I like Ashcroft because he believes in the individual right, rather then the "collective" BS the anti-gunners spout. Ashcroft is right on this.
Fighting a "War on Terror" in a free country is extremely diificult. I've always disagreed with the courts extending our rights to noncitizens. As most terrorists aren't citizens...then it's time to cease immigration (unless one has a job to come to...as they do it in Canada).
What I am concerned mostly about is the "war on Terror" will result in a war on law abiding US citizens.

Ozarker · Jul 24, 2002

But Ruby Ridge was on Bush Sr.'s watch...wasn't it?

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.foxinternet.net/web/amerika/ruby001.htm>No.</A>

Charlie_Iliff · Jul 24, 2002

Same with Ruby Ridge. The ATF created the events that led up to the siege. The US Marshals took over when he failed to show up in court. The FBI didn't go in until the US Marshals blew it.
It's probably impossible to sort facts from after-the -fact rationalizations, but one frequently quoted claim is that the local U.S. Marshall in charge of Weaver's case planned all along to arrest him when he came to town, and didn't blow it at all. ATF pressure and others in the Marshall's service overruled him and formulated the attack on the place full of mostly innocent people in order to serve a warrant for failure to appear on the relatively minor charge of sawing off a couple of gun barrells.
I have little doubt the ATF sucked the FBI into a bad situation with what seems to be its too typical overenthusiasm, and I understand it was U.S. Marshalls who first attacked, using a silenced rifle on the family dog. All of us, the FBI included, and perhaps the FBI particularly, have to be on guard against the type of situation that escalates far beyond the actual crime or risk of crime to the point that the enforcement is worse than the threat.