Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

  1. #41
    Student
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-09-11 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    277

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

    Soooo.......the big story here is that GW didn't use the military............wow......outrageous........... ............the worse Obama does, the more stupid little pointless stories that seem to come out.......about Bush.....may be a connection there..................
    When governments fear people, there is liberty, when people fear governments, there's Tyranny

  2. #42
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    northern ca.
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    184

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Upon orders from his chain of command: Eisenhower and McArthur. They weren't camped on the White House lawn.
    It's been a long time since I remembered hearing that story,just threw it out there.Patton and McArthur were great generals,but my point was the Army will do what it is told to do.

  3. #43
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,444

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Nope the District falls under Federal Control and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

    Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Except, that the people who live there are American citizens and they do fall under the protection Posse Comitatus.

    And, yes, I would have called foul had military aircraft been tasked to attack an American citizen with air-to-surface missiles and/or automatic weapons fire, since the employment against of such weapons systems against American citizens is illegal. Not to mention the potential for colateral damage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Except, that the people who live there are American citizens and they do fall under the protection Posse Comitatus.
    No the District doesn't fall under Posse

    From Section 8,

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

  5. #45
    Educator a777pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Flower Mound, in the basement
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 08:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    815

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    No the District doesn't fall under Posse

    From Section 8,

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

    You could be right about the District not eing covered under the 1878 Act.

    The Myth of Posse Comitatus
    I came into this world fighting, screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

  6. #46
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    No the District doesn't fall under Posse

    From Section 8,

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
    I believe the district actually does fall under the act.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf

    That CRS report offers a very good idea of the scope.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, yes, I would have called foul had military aircraft been tasked to attack an American citizen with air-to-surface missiles and/or automatic weapons fire, since the employment against of such weapons systems against American citizens is illegal. Not to mention the potential for colateral damage.
    This is incorrect. Read the link above.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #47
    Educator a777pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Flower Mound, in the basement
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 08:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    815

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    We all have access to the words of this act and to other's opinions of its scope and yet we disagree. This is exactly why it is a good reason to have people of various backgrounds and opinions to advise the President. The very fact that this was brought up but ultimately turned down as an option by the President is a good thing.
    I came into this world fighting, screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I believe the district actually does fall under the act.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf

    Sorry NYC but the District doesn't fall under Posse,

    The Posse Comitatus Act forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

    From,
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army]Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

  9. #49
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Sorry NYC but the District doesn't fall under Posse,

    The Posse Comitatus Act forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

    From,
    Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ah, I think you're right. I was looking at 10 USC 381, but that only deals with procuring equipment, not the entire act.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Ah, I think you're right. I was looking at 10 USC 381, but that only deals with procuring equipment, not the entire act.
    No problem I was thinking the same thing but decide to check the Bonus March items.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •