Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/31/2005 12:25:46 PM EDT
I have a legal education. Yet, I have no clue beyond what bad TV movies tell me. Lay it on me.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:27:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 12:28:55 PM EDT by raven]
When the military's in charge of law enforcement because the burden of maintaining order has gone beyond what civilian authorities can cope with.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:32:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
When the military's in charge of law enforcement



And they throw out the bill of rights "temporarly" note in our Governments history they have yet to give back anything they took away. Put simply your states NG and Police are now between neutral to hostile. Also they have the noteworthy ability to >>>shoot looters<<< and those who break imposed curfews and resist. In a city it is at times neccessary, nationwide consider your authorities to be hostile.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:37:44 PM EDT
i basically understand the whole military in charge thing but I am unable to locate any constitutional authority for this whole proposition.

I suppose it would be moot by the time it reached the courts but perhaps it would be "moot yet escaping review" thus taken by the courts.

shooting looters on sight just seems like a violation of the 4th amendment.

of course a private citizen shooting a looter wouldn't violate the 4th...

Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:41:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spookyspiff:
i basically understand the whole military in charge thing but I am unable to locate any constitutional authority for this whole proposition.

I suppose it would be moot by the time it reached the courts but perhaps it would be "moot yet escaping review" thus taken by the courts.

shooting looters on sight just seems like a violation of the 4th amendment.

of course a private citizen shooting a looter wouldn't violate the 4th...




You remind me of the EPA official in Ghostbusters.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:42:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spookyspiff:
i basically understand the whole military in charge thing but I am unable to locate any constitutional authority for this whole proposition.

I suppose it would be moot by the time it reached the courts but perhaps it would be "moot yet escaping review" thus taken by the courts.

shooting looters on sight just seems like a violation of the 4th amendment a good idea.

of course a private citizen shooting a looter wouldn't violate the 4th...


Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:15:56 PM EDT
The US Army’s Field Manual 3-19.15, “Civil Disturbance Operations,” 18 April 2005, is the basic procedures manual for using Army forces to enforce civil order either in or out of the United States. Here are some excerpts relevant to the possibility of using federal troops to enforce civil order in Lousisana, now that Gov. Blanco has said she will ask for them.

FEDERAL INTERVENTION AND AID
B-1. Under the Constitution of the United States and United States Code, the President is empowered to direct federal intervention in civil disturbances to—

· Respond to state requests for aid in restoring order.

· Enforce the laws of the United States.

· Protect the civil rights of citizens.

· Protect federal property and functions.

...

B-3. The Constitution of the United States and federal statutes authorize the President to direct the use of federal armed troops within the 50 states and territories and their political subdivisions. The President is also empowered to federalize the NG of any state to suppress rebellion and enforce federal laws.

B-4. Federal assistance is provided to a state when the state has used all of its resources, including its NG, to quell a disorder and finds the resources insufficient. Usually, active duty federal forces are used to augment the NG of the requesting state. However, the President may choose to federalize the NG of another state and use them alone or with other forces to restore order.

B-5. ... The President may employ armed federal troops to suppress … domestic violence … if … the civil authorities of a state cannot or will not provide adequate protection.

...

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONTRAINTS

B-27. The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews.

B-28. ... The Constitution of the United States allows the use of the federal military to execute or enforce the law when necessary to protect federal or civilian property and functions. However, significant restrictions exist on employing federal military forces within the United States.
...

POSSE COMITATUS
B-39. Generally, federal military forces may not give law enforcement assistance to civil authorities without conflicting with the Posse Comitatus Act. However, constitutional and statutory exceptions to this prohibition do exist. ...
...

B-41. The Posse Comitatus Act prescribes criminal penalties for the use of the US Army or Air Force to execute the laws of or to perform civilian law enforcement functions within the United States. DOD policy extends this prohibition to the US Navy and Marine Corps. Prohibiting the military from executing the laws means that military personnel may not participate directly in—

· An arrest; a search and seizure; a stop and frisk; or an interdiction of vessels, aircraft, or vehicles.

· A surveillance or pursuit.

· A civilian legal case or any other civilian law enforcement activity as informants, undercover agents, or investigators.
...

Constitutional Exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act

B-43. Under its inherent authority, the US government is responsible for preserving public order and carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits, by force if necessary. Under the Constitution of the United States, exceptions allow the use of military force to execute or enforce the law. Some of the exceptions are to—

· Protect civilian property and functions.

· Ensure preservation of public order and carry out government operations, by force if necessary.

· Protect civil rights where local authorities do not or cannot protect them.

· Protect federal property and functions.

· Quell civil disturbances and labor strife that rises to the level of civil disorder.

B-44. The President may order the armed forces to support state civil authorities suffering from an insurrection or civil disturbance. He must act personally by first issuing a proclamation calling on insurgents to disperse and retire peacefully within a limited time. This occurred when federal forces were called in to counter the Los Angeles riots in 1992.

Protect Civilian Property and Functions

B-45. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. This exception has rarely been used.

Protect Federal Property and Functions

B-46. The federal government may use military force to protect federal property and federal government functions when local authorities cannot or decline to provide adequate protection.
...

Support to Civil Law Enforcement

B-49. It is DOD policy to cooperate with civilian law enforcement officials to the greatest practical extent. ... US military forces are never placed under the command of civilian law enforcement officers or nonfederalized NG. DOD policy concerning the provision of military support to LEAs [“law-enforcement agencies” – DS], including personnel and equipment, are contained in DOD Directive 5525.5.
...

ROLES OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND FEDERAL FORCES
B-51. The preservation of law and order in the civilian community is the responsibility of state and local governments and law enforcement authorities. When a civil disturbance in a civilian community turns to widespread rioting that includes arson, looting, and acts of violence, the civil authorities may decide that they do not have the resources to quell the riot. They may then turn to the NG and federal forces to support the civil authorities in restoring law and order. Civil disturbances in any form are prejudicial to public law and order.

National Guard Forces

B-52. The NG (as a state organization) responds to the governor according to state law for civil disturbance operations. ... In extreme circumstances, the NG can be brought on federal service for civil disturbance operations when ordered to under the appropriate federal statute by the President. ... The following are examples of appropriate missions for the NG:

· Manning traffic control points.

· Providing building security.

· Providing area security and patrols.

· Providing security at custody facilities.

· Providing security and escort for emergency personnel and equipment.

· Protecting sensitive sites.

· Transporting law enforcement personnel.

· Providing show of force.

· Dispersing crowds.

· Employing riot control munitions.

· Providing very important person (VIP) protection and escort.

· Providing quick reaction and reserve force.
...

B-54. The commitment of federal troops to deal with domestic civil disturbances must be viewed as a drastic measure of last resort. Their role should never be greater than what is absolutely necessary under the circumstances. Commanders should take every measure to avoid the perception of an invading force. A JTF [joint task force – DS] designated to respond to a civil disturbance should project the image of a restrained and well-disciplined force whose sole purpose is to help restore law and order with minimal harm to the people and property and with due respect for all law-abiding citizens.

B-55. The role of federal Army forces is to assist civil authorities in restoring law and order when the magnitude of the disturbance exceeds the capabilities of local and state LEA, including the NG. Under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and selected federal statutes, the President may order the employment of the federal armed forces to aid local and state civil authorities to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens. Federal military forces may also protect federal facilities and installations in any state, territory, or possession.

www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/08/31/us-army-manual-on-domestic-intervention/
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:21:41 PM EDT
The legal basis is "I have a gun and I will shoot you until you are dead if you don't do what I say.".
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:40:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 1:40:45 PM EDT by sharky30]
well, in N.O. martial law isn't being applied right, because the looting got worse
Top Top