A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I have striven to not become political where this blog was concerned as the message here is of great importance to me, our troops and veterans. I will always do my best to not spout my political views here, other than where legislation and actions concerning issues of PTSD and aid to our veterans and soldiers. I have come to realize that sometimes it is necessary to do so, the later more so than otherwise.
I will never think that having the regular military deployed within our borders is a good idea. The executive orders of the last two years have set the ground work for a military “intervention” as prescribed and interpreted by the commander in chief and answerable to no one, absolute power has been consolidated. When has this ever been a good idea?
As the laws stand right now, one man can say I invoke marital law and commandeer the country bypassing and foregoing any judicial or congressional oversight. Without having to explain or a clear indication of a threat to its citizens except to “say” that a national security issue has arisen.
It sets an extremely bad precedent and mechanism for our own troops to be used against its citizens. Yes they may have “nonlethal” means to “subdue” its citizens. But now that our military can be used to quell riots or demonstrations, which was how our nation was founded and every major civil rights and liberties were won, we will see abuses of this power. Do we really have confidence in the benevolence of our leaders in Washington to act in our best interest? Huh, hello, the bailout!
The Posse Comitatus Act has been completely circumvented even thought it still stands, the executive orders of late have created a loophole and sets a very loose interpretation without oversight as to how and when federal forces can be used inside our borders. When has our government ever created a loophole that was not used?
I do not doubt the intentions of our troops, it is the consolidation of powers that I question and do not trust. As it stands right now ONE person can seize control of our government, nation and its assets in the name of national security without a damn good reason to do so.
The only way I see this as acceptable would be a scenario of regular military forces invading our country and a temporary order of command during such incursions.
The actions taken of late are permanent and set the stage for absolute control, a despot, supreme rule. The complete mechanism for rule by decree has been set.
(33) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
i am so sickened by the parasites who use fake pics to scam people. Ho
Military Dating Scammers Wising Up
Hi Ladies I have a site on Facebook that supports ladies who have been
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/nustugah.juliet please look
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/nustugah.juliet
A Call to Arms Against Nigerian Scammers
here is a address one wanted me to send gifts to hAddress : 41 Agbowo
Dan
Could you explain which executive orders in the last two years have completely circumvented the Posse Comitatus Act?
SSgtJ
Do we really think that the military will kill our own civilians when Obama tells them to shut down talk radio and confiscate our guns? That is your fear isn’t it?
Fearless
Bush signed the statement very recently!!
Remember Kent State.
During the 1956 a presidential candidate said that rioting students should be shot if that is what it took to stop the “disorder’”
CJ
RG, i’m with Dan. Exactly what executive orders are you speaking about? Fearless, same question to you. The difference between Kent State and what you THINK is going to happen here is that Kent State was a bunch of National Guard troops who have authority to police under their state’s rules. Active duty troops do not.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear that there is NO way our military would ever do what you say. The purpose of this unit – let me repeat – the SOLE PURPOSE of this unit is to respond mainly to CBRNE events and provide assistance in the event of emergencies.
What I would like to see is the facts and proofs that the Act is being circumvented! How? Under what authorities? What orders?
sue
I’d like to have it explained too because I cannot find anything about this that says that powers were consolidated. I found an article from 2006 http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/posse comit.htm#apply that states there were proposed laws but that they were to expire in September of 2007 and if I remember correctly, Congress let the Homeland Security measures expire and then wrote their own version.
If any one has done this to our country, it would have to have come from the Democratically controlled congress and submitted to the President for signing. Bush could not just write this up on his own and sign it.
Critical Facts
Roman:
You are right on!
HR5122 was signed by Bush in Oct 2006 with the help of the then wet-noodle republican controlled congress. Section 1076 of HR5122 is titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies”. In essence, the act provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In of 2008, under the Democratically controlled congress, the law was changed back under HR 4986 to reflect the original Posse Comitatus Act of 1878; however, in signing H.R. 4986 into law Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.
NY-David
I’m interested to see how its been circumvented as well. Government without oversight, regardless of who is in charge, can and will lead to tyranny.
NY-David
Roman General
CF, you are right on the track, but it goes deeper than that. I am doing the research now, 2007 Defense Authorization Bill changes the Insurrection Act of 1807 key wording “Insurrection” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.” 2008 Defense Act did change the wording back, but Pres. Bush did write in his objections to “purport to impose” his earlier changes of definitions to the Defense Act of 2007.
The appearance of the Acts and legislation in question on the surface seem in the spirit of national defense, but lets look at the actual language used. The definitions of certain words change the significance and usage of these Acts and Bills, such as purport, a powerful little word pretty much negating anything the President disagrees with in the Defense Act of 2008; such as the change of language to the Posse Comitatus Act. Look beyond the “spirit” of the legislation, the words and actual meaning codify the employment of, not the intention of law.
Sovereignty in its most base democratic idealization means the power to the people, that we entrust and place constitutes who govern by decree of the people of a certain region. This idea of sovereignty lies with the peoples self determination within geographical boundaries who unite to represent their area of interest, which the idea of Posse Comitatus is the sanctioning body who give the power to our representatives to serve as our ambassadors to the other sovereign states and federal hierarchies.
Posse Comitatus in Latin means ‘Power of the county’, whose design was to deny a Federal Police force and place policing within the states and local governments. Unitary Executive Theory, “argues that the President, in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by any law or by Congress, since anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional.” The basis for Pres. Bush’s NSA warrantless surveillance, relegation of Geneva Conventions to municipal status (an international law said to be negated by Presidential Powers), Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up to circumvent the US legal systems and inalienable rights, all based on the principle of “State of Exception”, whereby claiming that the state has powers to supersede citizenship and individual rights during state emergencies, a mechanism for martial law without a definite threat, and Indefinite Suspension of Law characterizes the state of exception.
Further, the War Powers Act 0f 1973 (WPA), states that the president must notify congress within 48 hours of committing US forces to military action and a limit of 60 days of such action before a declaration of war or of force would be authorized, and setting mandates to the execution of said actions and guidelines to be dutifully followed. Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, S.J.RES.23.CPS (AUMF), passed the senate and became Public Law No: 107-40 on Sept 14, 2001. This law gives an open ended “right” to the president to wage war against anyone that he alone deems an enemy of the state in the name of national security and The War on Terror (WOT), where the WPA sets formal channels of involvement with congress and the president in executing said arraignments, the AUMF again sets precedent against such standards.
Then there is the the suspension of habeas corpus in the name of the “war on terror”, which of course was reversed by the Supreme Court. Also, the suspension of Miranda rights in said same name, with forthcoming research on the significance of this erosion of our rights. These actions go to the argument of consolidation of powers.
Without these bills passed into laws, and the executive orders within the last handful of years the actions taken of late would have been unlawful and unconstitutional, and has yet to be determined otherwise; by the weaving of international laws, treaties and unproven theories of presidential powers and rights granted during times of war the die has been cast for ONE person to decide the course of our nation, without recognition of the peoples wishes, without oversight due to “the secret nature of the WOT” and without responsibility of actions due to loosely worded instruments of concealment and integration of sovereignty and self determination.
CJ
RG, you’re reading it wrong. President is not “purporting to impose” anything. He said that the changes of the 2008 “purport to impose requirements” on HIM, not the other way around. Additionally, he said that he “shall construe [the changes] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.” So, the Insurrection Act of 1807 is well in force and doesn’t support any arguments. Let’s also remember that the President doesn’t create law, he signs it.
Second, the warrantless surveillance issue is unknown to most people and is NOT what everyone says it is. It is not used against American citizens but targets foreign communications by known or suspected (through intelligence reporting) terrorist groups into the US. It’s more mumbo jumbo conspiracy theory to think that the NSA and our government are spying on every day Americans, because they aren’t. Unfortunately, I can’t go further into our restrictions and restraints and explain this more in detail due to the classified and confidential nature of it. I think I made it clear we aren’t spying on Americans.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 deals with the fact that the courts, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, think that enemy combatants are entitled to trials!! This is absurd in the conduct of war. Can you imagine every German and Japanese POW being entitled to trials in our courts? It’s unthinkable and makes NO sense at all. The MCA2006 specifically deals with “unlawful enemy combatants” as described in the Geneva Conventions and followed by THIS country more than any other!! Without this act, Soldiers would be less likely to take prisoners in combat, resulting in more casualties. Soldiers would waste literally months of their lives sitting in court rooms testifying against these unlawful enemy combatants that they took off the battlefield instead of winning the war. Our manpower would be depleted for such nonsense that has NEVER happened in history. I blame the liberal court system and it’s “entitlement” mentality that seems to permeate everything it touches and ignores the rules of laws of war and treats terrorists like protected entities, which they are not.
Now, we move on to the absurdity of “habeas corpus”. With respect to whom? POWs? Again, when in history has any POW or unlawful enemy combatant EVER been read their rights? I can’t even respond to this suggestion without acknowledging the craziness of it, so I’ll leave that on its own merit as baseless.
Finally, please show me when in our history a declaration of war was ever given with a definitive timeline of when the war would end? Why would we expect the President or Congress, in Public Law 107-40, to set a date for when the Law expires and war can no longer be waged? Again, insanity reigns now on ASP.
Can we be realistic here and actually read what we’re saying instead of interpreting it?
Isaac
Coming from what you guys call a “militarised country”, I think it is time for a quick look at things for both CF and RG.
Every male citizen in my country has to serve 2 years in the armed forces or civil service, and the country being small as it is, troops and cops are always seen around, during or after their training.
How it presents problems, I still do not know. I come from such a country where the military has the power to do as their job requires in my country, and all it does is provide so much security and freedom for us such that we are allowed to just ignore them without even a simple acknowledgement.
Your troops are much higher trained than ours are, so if we have no problems, what more you guys?
That being said, in what way does your “loophole” cause problems?
Roman General
purport
Verb
-to claim to be or do something, esp. falsely
-of speech or writing) to signify or imply
A. Yes he says that the Defense Act of 2007 having reverted in 2008, by “purporting” the changes he means to say that they are false and without jurisdiction, therefore not to govern his actions. His constitutional authority? He has fought what the High courts and legal scholars have told him what that authority entails, against his personal convictions and beliefs.
B. Yes, what you say is true about the warrantless surveillance with respect to enemy combatants or threats, but there is nothing to limit these actions or actually define what that means EXCEPT the definitions given BY the president and only the president, more opportunity for abuse of power.
Which was actually my point originally, unlimited power and interpretation by one person. What is to stop what you say will not or is not happening?
C. The MCA of 2006 actually, if we are not reading, into, but actually reading what we talk about, denies a writ of habeas corpus to unlawful enemy combatants. It took your conservative high court to change the language of the Act. Also, the MCA is the mechanism for indefinitely holding persons without a designation or charges.
And if you read it, the Act strips away the Geneva Convention (GC) rights given to everyone in the world by international treaty by treating them as “unlawful”, which in the GC defines unlawful combatant to be prescribed to a civilian court of the holding country. Which is why we have the MCA so as to create our own definitions of terms to dictate our own proscriptions to handling combatants of war, conflict and This Act does nothing to protect these rights.
D. CJ, you are confusing habeas corpus with Miranda Rights.
Habeas corpus is a writ to a court from a person being help in jail or prison who has not been given access to the courts, the whole world has some kind of writ considering this fundamental right.
Miranda Rights are inalienable rights not given to us by someone reading them to us, but that which we are born with. They govern our right not to incriminate ourselves and guaranteeing our 5th amendment rights. These apply in civil policing procedures between citizens and local and federal police, they have no place in war.
So, yes you are right it would be crazy to be reading anyone their rights in a combat zone, yes, yes totally absurd.
And, no matter to this conversation at all, but Miranda rights do not have to be read to someone being arrested at all, it is only needed when government agents are to question someone in custody. This has been firmly established by the High Courts.
E. Oh never did I say that in the history of war that a definite time table was set, again totally absurd, ludicrous even. Pardon me for not making this clear, as the laws prior to WOT the mechanism was that the President would report to congress, who gave him the right to go to war, to set hallmarks or goals and to inform Congress of the situation and then an exchange would ensue and actions determined until the next scheduled Congress convened, this wold go on through out the war. Yes this does happen now, but the one thing that has changed with new arraignments of law and procedure the balance of power between the two branches of government has shifted to an imbalance in favor of the president.
These comments are not me talking only of what I believe or think, they are summaries of research of actual laws, bills, executive orders and arguments based on political intricacies. I have answered and counterpointed every argument you have given, without responding emotionally or by becoming erratic. Point, counterpoint.
Roman General
Issac, culture has a great influence on how a country has been founded and interacts with its citizens and government.
You come from a country with one dominate culture that has a focus on the wellbeing of its people overall, everyone looks out for one another, non-competitiveness and the greater good prevails.
Our country is a culture of inward reflection against with a outward sense of others, a highly competitive culture with a dominating mainstream culture and many subcultures with great distinction and conflict between them. If we were more of one mind in our government and culture we could possibly advance culturally as fast as we do commercially.
CJ
Isaac, just so you know, RG is a veteran and was deployed during the first Gulf War.
CJ
RG, there are numerous laws and regulations that DO limit how we use them. It’s called intelligence oversight and we are inspected on it quite often. Anything that would even remotely be thought in violation of “spying” on Americans is heavily scrutinized and typically denied if even the assumption of law breaking is believed. There is so much more we COULD do but don’t because our hands are so tied – as they should be – tracking domestic terrorism, even by foreigners. There are more limitations that you could possibly even guess. Our government bends over backwards to ensure that our civil rights are no violated as we work hard to defeat these terrorists that want nothing more than to kill every single one of us.
I’m not confusing Miranda and habeas corpus. You mentioned both and I think I just focused on the Miranda aspect. I could care less about habeas corpus for unlawful enemy combatants. They aren’t subject to our constitution. We’re not holding people because they committed a crime and they’re waiting on a court date. We’re holding these people because they are prisoners of war. Prisoners of war aren’t given habeas corpus. We are legally allowed to hold POWs until the war is over. When we leave Iraq, legally all the POW from there should be released. If they wanted the courtesy of our court system they shouldn’t have gone to a combat zone to kill people. There is no law – and there shouldn’t be – that says POWs must be released in X number of months, days, years, etc. Besides, very few are held for more than a few months anyway and released. Do we owe them anything? Not at all.
I still love ya, bro, and would listen to your points light years ahead of CF’s any day.
JD
Roman General, your analysis is astute and accurate. I applaud you and agree with you. At some point people will awake to what is happening within and to our nation. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
CJ
Roman General, I wouldn’t take JD’s endorsement as much of anything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day but he has yet to agree with one thing I’ve said. he’s what you would call a zealot.
Isaac
RG,
I have to agree with you, that coming from a small country, we have one unique culture, although we still have some diversity between races. The US is far bigger and does have many different kinds of people.
I would hardly say we look out for each other though, being such a small country also means fewer places in top education institutes, we usually are at each other’s throats, but I see what you mean, in that we don’t mind and/or don’t care the military on our streets.
Another thing I want to highlight. You said that it might cause abuse to the “major civil rights and liberties [which] were won”, but another thing to note, is the abuse of the 1st Amendment that all these protesters often hide behind.
Roman General
LOL, I’ll take my compliments anywhere I can get em. Thank you CJ for your willingness to spar with me.
Huh, the POW’s you are talking about can be held and should be. A lawful combatant qualifies for a classification for POW status and will be released at the end of hostilities.
I was talking about unlawful combatants, a different classification altogether, the label that most of the prisoners at Guantanamo have. Who can be held indefinitely and we have no recourse or incentive to ever release.
The people being let out of Guantanamo are being tried for war crimes and have been acquitted.
A citizen of the US could be classified as an unlawful combatant, disagreeing with the President would be sufficient and could be grounds for imprisonment under the statutes as they are.
And, you say we would not do that, how would we know? If they were classified as such then they would not see the light of day or court to let anyone know.
Finally, my bringing all this up was to say that the consolidation of powers without limits is a dangerous precedent. Everything that was done had a mechanism to so, but with mainly time limits and now there are no limits at all, time wise or otherwise.
I understand that feeling of:
“How could this ever be possible? I do not want to believe this could ever happen?”
When we allow rights and freedoms to be taken away from anyone, citizens or not, we remove them from everyone.
Roman General
Issac, what abuses of the 1st amendment?
Isaac
RG,
Oh, I meant that these anti-war libtards, like to say it is their “right” to do this and that, but at the same time, cause problems for others. Expression is fine, but when it hinders others, it has to be cracked down on.
Roman General
How would you define problems for others?
Isaac
RG,
I would mean the blocking of a Marine Recruitment centre, the egging of a soldier’s funeral, etc.
I will be reporting for an interview soon to see if I am fit for voluntary service at a local ARC soon, while we do not have such problems with protesters in my country, IF anybody tries to hinder me, I probably will lose my temper.
CJ
RG, the “unlawful combatants” have no rights. However, because we’re such a great and compassionate nation, we give them POW rights.
Roman General
cj, not according to the rules, geez dude did you not read any of the links in my treatise?
Critical Facts
CJ:
By “unlawful combatants,” do you refer to the dirt farmers that were corralled by the Northern Alliance and sold to the US as bad guys who hate America?
Isaac
CF,
Do you also mean the hadjis trying to blow you and your family up? Not to mention the killing of Allied troops for Jihad?
If civilians refuse to leave a war zone despite repeated warnings, they are either siding with the enemy, or so stupid the future generations would be better off without their genes.
Critical Facts
Isaac:
Many of the dirt farmers were unwilling conscripts of the Taliban. They were not simply stupid genetic defects as your comment implies.
Isaac
CF,
So the Taliban should have been left in power as YOUR views suggest?
Critical Facts
Issac:
My point is, many of the folks that ended up at Gitmo were foreigners in Afghanistan who were conscripted by the Taliban against their will – e.g., told to fight, wash clothes, or whatever with or for the Taliban, or be killed.
I don’t understand how this confirmed fact translates into the thought leading to your response.
Isaac
Ok, in my earlier comments about “civilians” I meant those who where NOT forced to work for the enemy. Even if they were farmers etc, are you willing to take that chance? Besides, I dare say their life is better in Gitmo than in ‘The Stan’.
In any case, the Taliban should have been thrown out. The VC also forced people in service during Vietnam, and damn right, info out of them is important.
If anyone helps the enemy, forced or not, is fair game. Are you going to interview and everybody before you shoot them? A person with an automatic weapon was just captured, should lives be lost because you have to ask “Are you a farmer conscripted into the Taliban?”
Critical Facts
Issac:
My guess is were your son at Gitmo, you might have a different perspective. Remember, also, the many of the folks at Gitmo were sold to the US by the Northern Alliance, and not captured by US forces with a machine gun in hand as you suggest.
PS. I agree the Taliban should have been thrown out, and had Bush not made the stupid decision to invade Iraq, things would likely be far different in “The Stan” now.
LibertyAngel
I have to agree that when we are willing to remove the basic God given rights of others, that we destroy our own liberty. It goes back to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. If we are willing to take human beings and toss them into prison without habeas corpus, then we have justifiably said we agree for this to be the case for us. I do not agree with it. All men are created equal. Our own Declaration of Independence states this. Not just us, but ALL and that they are given rights by God. I would not want to stand before God, having been one that supported or usurped the gift that he has given all men. God justifies us in defending our liberties. But, we are to love even our enemies. They deserve a fair trail, no cruel and unusual punishment etc. To deny them this, you deny it for yourself. Absolute power corrupts Absolutely.
Pingback: TF News, Action and Analysis » Blog Archive » Posse Comitatus Loophole to Rule by Decree