What would you guys think about this in NO...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What would you guys think about this in NO...

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:36:42 AM EDT

Would you all agree with the idea of sending a US Army infantry battalion there to try and get a handle on the situation?

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:38:42 AM EDT

[#1]

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:39:48 AM EDT

[#2]

I'm not trying to be a retard with some stupid SHTF scenerio or whatever.

A simple yes or no will do. I'll explain why I posted this later.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:40:40 AM EDT

[#3]

No. They've got plenty of other duties (like protecting us from the outside world). This is totally the kind of thing Nat'l Guard troops are for.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:42:00 AM EDT

[#4]

What are you? Some stupid retard with a SHTF scenario?

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:42:36 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
No. They've got plenty of other duties (like protecting us from the outside world). This is totally the kind of thing Nat'l Guard troops are for.

+1 even though many guard units are overseas. I have always been against using the Guard as reserves to the regular forces though. Guard should stay in the US, if we needed troops badly enough outside, we should have the capabilities to do so with regular forces.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:43:09 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
What are you? Some stupid retard with a SHTF scenario?

has that look to it

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:44:09 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What are you? Some stupid retard with a SHTF scenario?

has that look to it

No, I'm a fucking infantryman in the US Army who was just informed by the battalion commander that this may happen. I'm just seeing what you guys think.

That good enough for you?

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:46:11 AM EDT

[#8]

Sounds good. Aim true.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:46:56 AM EDT

[#9]

Uh.. you might like to google this...

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:47:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Isn't it against the law for them to do that?

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:47:47 AM EDT

[#11]

Yes, regular combat troops should be sent in.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:48:38 AM EDT

[#12]

No.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:49:27 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Uh.. you might like to google this...

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:49:41 AM EDT

[#14]

While it sounds like a great idea to me, I'd say no it should not be done. This is what the Nat Guard is for. There is no need to have the regular forces of the US military handle this.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:50:02 AM EDT

[#15]

National Guard is for domestic situations. That's why it's wrong to send them out to foreign theaters. What happens if the Transportation Division is in downtown Baghdad and we have a large-scale natural disaster?

Oh wait...

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:50:34 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Would you all agree with the idea of sending a US Army infantry battalion there to try and get a handle on the situation?

A better idea would be to tap reserve LEO capacity from around the country and send us there under Federal auspices. I would venture most Sheriff's and many Police agencies have reserve contingents that are fully certified trained officers who could be spared to assist.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:51:23 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Uh.. you might like to google this...

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

I'm aware of that, but there are exceptions to it.

See this: www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1251/MR1251.AppD.pdf

Specifically, the second exception.

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:51:44 AM EDT

[#18]

Would you all agree with the idea of sending a US Army infantry battalion there to try and get a handle on the situation?

Where are you going to get one? They are all engaged in the WOT overseas!

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:52:28 AM EDT

[#19]

that's weird, it incl the marcor. thing is, there was a big marcor review several years ago that determined posse comitatus did NOT apply to the marines...

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:53:15 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Would you all agree with the idea of sending a US Army infantry battalion there to try and get a handle on the situation?

Where are you going to get one? They are all engaged in the WOT overseas!

No they aren't

Posted: 9/1/2005 8:56:13 AM EDT

[#21]

I'd suggest they send in the National Guard, or perhaps gangs of armed vigilantes who can administer street justice to the ghetto thugs causing trouble. Maybe the Feds will just sit back & let them kill each other.

Posted: 9/1/2005 9:01:41 AM EDT

[#22]

While we're complaining about using federal troops lets also tell the US Navy to turn around and steam out of the Gulf...ARfcom says they are not needed; the Guard and NOPD have this under control...

Posted: 9/1/2005 9:02:46 AM EDT

[#23]

Pursuant to the presidential power to quell domestic violence,
federal troops are expressly exempt from the prohibitions of
Posse Comitatus Act, and this exemption applies equally to
active-duty military and federalized National Guard troops.

Posted: 9/1/2005 9:49:22 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Would you all agree with the idea of sending a US Army infantry battalion there to try and get a handle on the situation?

A better idea would be to tap reserve LEO capacity from around the country and send us there under Federal auspices. I would venture most Sheriff's and many Police agencies have reserve contingents that are fully certified trained officers who could be spared to assist.

Not really, from a logistical standpoint. There is no established chain of command, no commanality fo gear, and no internal logistics chain. The have never worked or trained together. No internal communicatons network, radios that are incompatable, and they don't brng thier own shelter and life support.

It would take weeks to just organize and move them.

All those any military unit can handle now, and be in place in a few days.