• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Posse Comitatus is Now Dead

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/


The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.


The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.

Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
They have been training for civil disturbances for years ... I think that this just formalizes what they have been doing already.

Its one reason why I complain about soldiers in camo fatigues in public. I complain to their commander and to the troops themselves. They want to be in uniform in public - it should be a dress uniform.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
They have been training for civil disturbances for years ... I think that this just formalizes what they have been doing already.

Its one reason why I complain about soldiers in camo fatigues in public. I complain to their commander and to the troops themselves. They want to be in uniform in public - it should be a dress uniform.

Funny since even when I was in our work uniforms were bdus because dress uniforms would have been safety hazards. So according to that I can't get a bite to eat on the way home?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Air Force used to prohibit the wear of "fatigues" in public except for essential stops to and from work. When more and more folks started wearing various forms of utility uniforms on a daily basis, out of consideration for the members, this rule was removed.

It is silly and bigoted for someone to object to folks wearing their daily uniform when they go to lunch. However, I have come to expect silliness and bigotry from certain individuals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
"Troops" wearing their "combat" uniform in public will lead to desensitizing the public to combat troops roaming the streets with a gun? Hmmm.....not convinced.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
The Air Force used to prohibit the wear of "fatigues" in public except for essential stops to and from work. When more and more folks started wearing various forms of utility uniforms on a daily basis, out of consideration for the members, this rule was removed.

It is silly and bigoted for someone to object to folks wearing their daily uniform when they go to lunch. However, I have come to expect silliness and bigotry from certain individuals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

They can go out for lunch -- I'm talking about after hours. And its not "bigoted"

This rule was not removed - I talked to 2 COs in my area ... they claim that because we are at war, the rule does not apply...but when have we not been at war~its been a constant state since Korea.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
I am more concerned with the police with flak vests armed to the teeth walking around then anyone wearing whatever they call the camo now. When I got out 02 the general rule was quick stops like lunch,had picking up kids etc. they didn't want you going to watch a movie in them. It was funny back in 96 when I was doing recruiters assistance he gave us a bunch of business cards and since we were wearing blues he wanted us to go to the mall.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I am more concerned with the police with flak vests armed to the teeth walking around then anyone wearing whatever they call the camo now. When I got out 02 the general rule was quick stops like lunch,had picking up kids etc. they didn't want you going to watch a movie in them. It was funny back in 96 when I was doing recruiters assistance he gave us a bunch of business cards and since we were wearing blues he wanted us to go to the mall.

I don't have the good vibrations once had seeing a military guy in a uniform ~ most Army personnel think that their fatigues are everywhere wear.

I generally do not see sailors or marines in fatigues in the general public .. almost always in dress uniform. I live by several bases of different branches.

I do like to complain to officers whose shoes are not shined to the level I had to keep my shoes shined. They all dislike the comments...but it gives me the giggles to complain. If an officer saw me with dirty\unshined shoes or boots they would complain to my CO...down the line to my supv. who would give me a verbal reprimand. If an officer gives me more than just a displeasured response like "none of you business attitude" then I ask for his CO's name ... that will always shut them up...100% of the time.

I generally do not complain to COs by giving names -- just general comments on how his command looks like crap because of a few of his soldiers not meeting military standards.

I think that they get paid too much, get too many benefits, are are now being trained to point their guns at me. Until that changes, I am leering of our military establishment. We spend way too much on military...
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
How did my thread on a serious subject turn into a fashion thread?

Let's clarify the issue again. The armed forces may now take control of a domestic matter without the state's governor's permission.

fashion_police_v4b0.jpg
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,866
Location
Granite State of Mind
This went off track quickly.

But, since we're talking about utility uniforms, I will just share my Army experience in the 1980s (joined the reserves in 1982, active duty 1986-89, IRR until 1992).

Whether it was the 501/504 olive green, or the woodland pattern BDU, the standard during that time was that you did not perform any official travel in any utility uniform. The standard uniform for travel was Class A, with Class B permitted for tropical zones.

In 1984, and for some time afterwards, the CG of Fort Hood was engaged in a battle of wills with the mayor and administration of Killeen. The CG simply declared that soldiers and officers could only wear BDUs off post while travelling directly from their residence to the post, with no stops allowed in between. Not for gas, not for lunch, not to pick up kids from daycare, not even buy food at a drive-through.

So, fast forward a couple of decades, and I was shocked to see cammo utilities being worn in public. For soldiers returning from deployment? Absolutely! They shouldn't wear a Class A uniform that has been stuffed in a duffel bag for 12 months. But, one back in CONUS, I don't like battle dress being worn casually. And since when do soldiers walk around bare-headed, wearing sunglasses, with their hands in their pockets???

Dad taught me how to tie a necktie; he explained he was good at it, because he had learned to tie one while on the run. He wasn't allowed on the bus unless in proper uniform, and chances are there would be an MP there to check.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
How did my thread on a serious subject turn into a fashion thread?

Let's clarify the issue again. The armed forces may now take control of a domestic matter without the state's governor's permission.

fashion_police_v4b0.jpg

Its clearly relevant ... you see soldiers in combat clothing ... you will then next see them with rifles .... you will next see them pointing their rifles at you ...
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
Its clearly relevant ... you see soldiers in combat clothing ... you will then next see them with rifles .... you will next see them pointing their rifles at you ...

I'm an AF brat. There was never any issue with soldiers wearing their BDU's off base anywhere I lived. The only issue was with us kids wearing camo. That was not allowed but we did it anyways.

The only problem with military wearing camo off base is they signal themselves out as being not armed, which is ironic.

Let's get back to point.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
"Soldiers" were stationed at airports with their guns and folks appreciated that show of force. What makes you think that the folks will reject soldiers with guns in their subdivision when the zombies are running loose?

Non-issue.....for now. I'll get all worked up if getting all worked up is required.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,866
Location
Granite State of Mind
"Soldiers" were stationed at airports with their guns and folks appreciated that show of force. What makes you think that the folks will reject soldiers with guns in their subdivision when the zombies are running loose?

If the zombies are running loose, I hope they bring loaded guns, unlike they did to the airport or the Boston Marathon manhunt.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,541
Location
Ohio, USA
Last edited:
Top