If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Long Island Press)   R.I.P Posse Commitatus   (longislandpress.com) divider line 98
    More: Scary, U.S., U.S. military, civil rights era, Daniel Ellsberg, senator patrick leahy, Chris Hedges, Michael German, emergency powers  
•       •       •

5282 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 12:32 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 10:37:17 AM
BUT WE SHOT DOWN YAMAMOTO!!!!!
 
2013-05-15 10:38:52 AM
1878-2003
 
2013-05-15 10:39:58 AM
Because only the military has any power in government.
 
2013-05-15 10:41:19 AM
Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn't "want to get involved in civilian law enforcement.

Then don't.
 
2013-05-15 10:42:34 AM

somedude210: YAMAMOTO


Something something Black Vera Wang
 
2013-05-15 10:46:35 AM
This reminds me of every cop movie / tv show EVER:

"Hey, What are you doing here? This is MY crime scene!"

"No its not. This is MY crime scene now!"

"Oh, yeah? think again! You're out of your jurisdiction. This is MY crime scene!"

"You're off the case! This is MY crime scene now!"

etc...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 11:04:33 AM
It's nothing new.  Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to situations involving the Insurection Act.
 
2013-05-15 11:12:19 AM
An old law that takes effect when the president is incapacitated and local forces cannot contain an uprising?

Yeah jeez there's that "creeping police state" for ya
 
2013-05-15 11:15:36 AM
Home > Columns/Blogs > U.S. Military 'Power Grab' Goes Into Effect

Your blog sucks.
 
2013-05-15 11:19:16 AM

LasersHurt: An old law that takes effect when the president is incapacitated and local forces cannot contain an uprising?

Yeah jeez there's that "creeping police state" for ya


You can tell that this is a misstatement of reality when the blogger uses unrelated exposition (heavily armed police) to support his conclusion (military takeover of society).
 
2013-05-15 11:52:50 AM
Did you just call me a pussy communist?

2.bp.blogspot.com

/obscure?
 
2013-05-15 12:14:43 PM
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, "a wanton power grab by the military,"

"Mathematics of wonton... burrito... meals."

and says, "It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."

How? I know people like to get all nuts about slippery slopes and blah blah blah, but "in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" seems like a doomsday situation where there is no civilian control. Although, I think in those situations, the military would probably just do it anyways and worry about the law later.

Idunno, I guess it's too early in the day for me to decide whether to be outraged by this.
 
2013-05-15 12:20:14 PM
"These phrases don't have any legal meaning," says Afran. "It's no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It's a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion."

Wut? I'm pretty sure that's not what this is.
 
2013-05-15 12:35:19 PM
This will be overturned in a second.
 
2013-05-15 12:37:32 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Did you just call me a pussy communist?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 227x298]

/obscure?


first thing I thought of...
 
2013-05-15 12:41:12 PM
Why are there almost no military bases near large cities anymore?

Apart from Best Korea not nuking us urban people in our sleep because the base is hours away, how will this martial law thing work. There are no PXs, base gas stations, bowling alleys, movie theaters, commisaries anywhere near cities that will need to be controlled (you know who you are).

At least when they bring everyone home, there will be a job waiting.
 
2013-05-15 12:43:28 PM

Car_Ramrod: Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, "a wanton power grab by the military,"

"Mathematics of wonton... burrito... meals."

and says, "It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."

How? I know people like to get all nuts about slippery slopes and blah blah blah, but "in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" seems like a doomsday situation where there is no civilian control. Although, I think in those situations, the military would probably just do it anyways and worry about the law later.

Idunno, I guess it's too early in the day for me to decide whether to be outraged by this.


When delegating a power, don't think in terms of what you think they'll do with it, think of what they can do with it if they're on a power trip and all storm trooper mode.
 
2013-05-15 12:46:53 PM

remus: Car_Ramrod: Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, "a wanton power grab by the military,"

"Mathematics of wonton... burrito... meals."

and says, "It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."

How? I know people like to get all nuts about slippery slopes and blah blah blah, but "in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" seems like a doomsday situation where there is no civilian control. Although, I think in those situations, the military would probably just do it anyways and worry about the law later.

Idunno, I guess it's too early in the day for me to decide whether to be outraged by this.

When delegating a power, don't think in terms of what you think they'll do with it, think of what they can do with it if they're on a power trip and all storm trooper mode.


But, who would be on the power trip? The military? They would incapacitate the president? Are you suggesting this ruling makes it easier for a coup d'état to occur? I think if military leaders wanted that, they wouldn't need a law.
 
2013-05-15 12:47:05 PM
Nothing says "Respected journal of merit" like the blog section of the Long Island Press.
 
2013-05-15 12:50:17 PM
You'll have to excuse me if I bust out my industrial-strength NACLdispenser after reading this sentence in TFA:
" 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 "

ummmm. No. Just, no.  The United States Code is our federal laws, only a law passed by Congress AND signed by the president  can add, delete or modify anything in the USC.  Now perhaps he meant the Code of Federal REGULATIONS (CFR), but even then the DOD can't do anything  quietly as they have to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking " in the federal register, describing their proposed changes, then giving the public sixty day to comment on that, then publishing a final rule in which, among other things they have  to address any filed comments and then the Office of Management and Budget has to approve the rule.
 
2013-05-15 12:52:42 PM

WTF Indeed: Nothing says "Respected journal of merit" like the blog section of the Long Island Press.


The comments are even better. One guy believes that the military will start going door to door and killing all American citizens.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:33 PM

So there was this guy named George and he had some money problems.  The tried taxing tea and stamps need for commerce but that upset the locals and they asked him to stop.  Well George was full of himself and wouldn't let a bunch of local yokels tell him so he sent in his soldiers to set things straight.  Thats when the locals went from talking to rebelling as turning your military on your own population was seen as tyranny



here's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:34 PM
maybe it's me but

with the NRA and people like Michelle Bachman constantly speaking of arming the populace and "fighting for God" ....

well - i don't want a well-armed religious delusional faction of america prepping to fight against the government because then the government will have to prepare to fight against the population

this is another thing i'd love to call stupid and anti-constitutional that will be fodder for Stewart/Colbert but that someone will think is nifty and run with it. This can't be all about Obama, either.

something is terribly wrong
 
2013-05-15 12:58:38 PM

Warlordtrooper: This will be overturned in a second.


and pissed on.
 
2013-05-15 12:59:09 PM
The War on Drugs was a War on the American People... this article just connects the dots of that's when they got the weapons/training from.

stevebrownetc.com
 
2013-05-15 01:00:32 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Did you just call me a pussy communist?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 227x298]

/obscure?


You syphilitic Bolshevik.

You PERVERT.

YOU PUSSY COMMUNIST!!!!!

One of the best bad movies EVAR.
 
2013-05-15 01:01:49 PM
And so it begins......again.
 
2013-05-15 01:02:32 PM

vpb: It's nothing new.  Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to situations involving the Insurection Act.


Unfortunatelly having run into some people associated with it throughout my life, I thought the headline was referring to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)

But, alas, not that.
 
2013-05-15 01:07:13 PM
Having read the article, the stipulation indicates that for them to move unilaterally to contain civilian disturbances:

1) The President has to be incapacitated or out of touch in some way that it's impossible for them to get Presidential authority to do so...

AND

2) Existing local and state are unable to contain the civilian disturbances.

I honestly have no problem with this.  I can't see a situation where this stipulation would even come into effect, other than a full-blown nuclear war or natural disaster that wipes out the eastern seaboard...And in both of those cases, I think it'd be prudent to have the military have its hands free, legally, to do what needs doing to contain the situation.

I'm pretty farking liberal in my thinking, and the author of this article is shiatting his pants over nothing big as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-05-15 01:12:55 PM
infernalist -

  this isn't going to keep me up a night either but? let's play this

  after 9/11, the original, Bush was, by all public reports some version of "out of touch" - I recall speculation that VP Cheney was, for some brief time, in charge.  Conspiracy theory aside? How hard would it really be
to sell the idea that the president was ill/away/out of touch to a segment of the population?

  i hope someone puts this in the circular file quickly - its redundant, at best
 
2013-05-15 01:14:25 PM

Infernalist: I'm pretty farking liberal in my thinking, and the author of this article is shiatting his pants over nothing big as far as I'm concerned.


You will not remain a liberal if we allow the military to take on the function of the police.
That's pretty much what it boils down to... if they were able to do it for this Boston Bombing kid, they can do it again, and before you know it the police is working FOR the military, instead of working FOR the people.
 
2013-05-15 01:16:17 PM

parasol: infernalist -

  this isn't going to keep me up a night either but? let's play this

  after 9/11, the original, Bush was, by all public reports some version of "out of touch" - I recall speculation that VP Cheney was, for some brief time, in charge.  Conspiracy theory aside? How hard would it really be
to sell the idea that the president was ill/away/out of touch to a segment of the population?

  i hope someone puts this in the circular file quickly - its redundant, at best


Crappy formatting aside, I don't remember that at all. When was Bush out of touch? They were whisking him from safe place to safe place, but they have communication equipment around the president at all times.

And who would sell that idea? How could they sell that idea without the president knowing?
 
2013-05-15 01:19:43 PM

parasol: infernalist -

  this isn't going to keep me up a night either but? let's play this

  after 9/11, the original, Bush was, by all public reports some version of "out of touch" - I recall speculation that VP Cheney was, for some brief time, in charge.  Conspiracy theory aside? How hard would it really be
to sell the idea that the president was ill/away/out of touch to a segment of the population?

  i hope someone puts this in the circular file quickly - its redundant, at best


Considering the layers of protection surrounding the President by different agencies(NSA, CIA, Secret Service, the military), and the ease with which we can stay in contact via technology, the only thing outside of the two examples I listed above that would render the President 'impossible to reach' would be a full blown military coup.

And if such a thing happened, I sincerely doubt that they would bother trying to legally justify it in that moment.

But, that wouldn't happen anyways.  The military mentality and cultural emphasis on civilian control isn't just predominant within the armed forces, it's a 'part' of how they think, from the military heads on down to the privates.  I've yet to even 'hear' of a military man that would consider such a thing.  It horrifies them.
 
2013-05-15 01:21:27 PM
Brings up Title 10, searches for phrases from TFA's "quote"

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.

Doesn't find anything, wonders if story is BS.
 
2013-05-15 01:22:38 PM

NostroZ: Infernalist: I'm pretty farking liberal in my thinking, and the author of this article is shiatting his pants over nothing big as far as I'm concerned.

You will not remain a liberal if we allow the military to take on the function of the police.
That's pretty much what it boils down to... if they were able to do it for this Boston Bombing kid, they can do it again, and before you know it the police is working FOR the military, instead of working FOR the people.


Now, I was paying pretty close attention to the Boston thing, and the FBI was there(as they should have been), and the military wasn't in the streets.  That was the Boston PD.

Maybe I'm wrong though?  Did they dispatch the military to do door-to-door searching in Boston?   Because as far as I remember(and I was in the 'police scanner' threads all that night), the military wasn't a part of the Boston search.
 
2013-05-15 01:24:28 PM
farm3.staticflickr.com

"I've also sworn to protect the purity and essence of our natural fluids. "
 
2013-05-15 01:25:27 PM
There was speculation that Bush was out of touch and Cheney was in charge - personally, I discounted it knowing the potus is "in contact" at all times - the point i am trying, perhaps badly, to make is that this is the sort of thing we don't need.  It over empowers one area and scares another into overarming themselves.

If you have to ask how people can be sold the idea their president/leader/warlord is all-powerful/evil/no longer viable then you haven't watched enough fox news or read enough international press over the years. It does happen.

There is no good purpose for this as per the article
 
2013-05-15 01:26:00 PM

Infernalist: 1) The President has to be incapacitated or out of touch in some way that it's impossible for them to get Presidential authority to do so...


What about the Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Sect. of State, Sect. of the Treasury, Sect. of Defense, Attorney General, etc. etc. ?
 
2013-05-15 01:31:19 PM

give me doughnuts: Infernalist: 1) The President has to be incapacitated or out of touch in some way that it's impossible for them to get Presidential authority to do so...

What about the Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Sect. of State, Sect. of the Treasury, Sect. of Defense, Attorney General, etc. etc. ?


Once it gets down to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the military is just gonna laugh and say, "Ok, we'll take it from here".

But yea, they should include language about "acting president" or whatever to cover the time between the president being "incapacitated" and the next in line being sworn in. Just to be clear.
 
2013-05-15 01:33:20 PM

give me doughnuts: Infernalist: 1) The President has to be incapacitated or out of touch in some way that it's impossible for them to get Presidential authority to do so...

What about the Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Sect. of State, Sect. of the Treasury, Sect. of Defense, Attorney General, etc. etc. ?


Hush. There has never been a plan for dealing with a dead/missing president before this statute. Its why the conutry descended into chaos and anarchy when Kennedy was shot.
 
2013-05-15 01:35:21 PM

Magorn: You'll have to excuse me if I bust out my industrial-strength NACLdispenser after reading this sentence in TFA:
" 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 "

ummmm. No. Just, no.  The United States Code is our federal laws, only a law passed by Congress AND signed by the president  can add, delete or modify anything in the USC.


Unless the military has already taken over and wrested legislative and executive power from Congress and the President...

WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE
 
2013-05-15 01:39:51 PM
I'm just laughing at the facebook wharrgrrble squad in the comments.
 
2013-05-15 01:46:11 PM
Alex Jones...was right?

*dramatic chipmunk*
 
2013-05-15 01:47:21 PM
Isn't this Operation Garden Plot from the 1960s?
 
2013-05-15 01:50:27 PM
"extraordinary emergency circumstances"

www.ethansenglishcafe.com
 
2013-05-15 01:55:16 PM
MARTIAL LAWGHAZI!!
 
2013-05-15 01:56:58 PM
As a Canadian, this statement confuses me:
"It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."
How could the military be under civilian control if the Commander in Chief is the President? The US looks like a military-run state to most of us Canucks.
 
2013-05-15 01:59:29 PM

Bennie Crabtree: As a Canadian, this statement confuses me:
"It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."
How could the military be under civilian control if the Commander in Chief is the President? The US looks like a military-run state to most of us Canucks.


The answer lies within. The President is explicitly not a member of the military, but a civilian.
 
2013-05-15 02:00:22 PM

Bennie Crabtree: As a Canadian, this statement confuses me:
"It's quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control."
How could the military be under civilian control if the Commander in Chief is the President? The US looks like a military-run state to most of us Canucks.


Which branch of the armed forces is Obama in?

Who runs the Canadian military?
 
2013-05-15 02:00:31 PM
oi42.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report