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: 9/19/2005 3:48:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 3:50:38 PM EDT by AROptics]
There is talk of abandoning Posse Comitatus. There were thousands of armed looters attacking authorities, preventing rescues and preying on the helpless. What does it take? Why wasn't an insurrection declared with the subsequent full weight of the Armed Forces crushing the looters (while leaving those armed in their homes unmolested).

If Posse Comitatus is abandoned or not, there needs to be crystal clarity that arms CANNOT be confiscated from those defending their homes. The number one lesson of this disaster should be that the law-abiding armed homeowner is NOT the problem.

I hope this is the focus of the NRA's efforts at this point.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:51:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:52:28 PM EDT
I believe that under the law, if the Governor does not ask for federal assistance the President has to declare the Governor to be in insurrection against the federal government. I don't think Bush wanted to open that can of worms, since it was clear that the Governor was simply an idiot and not a rebel. During the rioting, I was as mad as you were about it, but the more I think about it I've become philosophical. Democracy is not just a right, but is a responsibility as well. Unfortunately, the people of Louisianna elected total incompetents for Governor and Mayor of New Orleans. The resulting rioting was simply that natural result of such incompetence. Democracy has consequences, and unfortunately the people of New Orleans learned that the hard way.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:58:45 PM EDT
It's too soon after the Patriot Act passed to let that particular cat out of the bag. Don't want to scare the sheep.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:00:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 4:01:02 PM EDT by TheKill]

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Democracy has consequences, and unfortunately the people of New Orleans learned that the hard way.




CAN THE DEMOCRACY BS ALREADY!!! WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! REPEAT AFTER ME:


REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC



REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!!!!


Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:03:08 PM EDT
To me, an insurrection implies an organized movement with clear leadership....in NO you just had a frenzy of anarchy.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:05:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:07:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 4:10:05 PM EDT by AROptics]
Col. David Hunt, FoxNews military analyst, stated that for 4 days there were organized armed gang members from as far away as Memphis that came to the city to loot. Col. Hunt stated that the city was "a free fire zone" and that the city was "divved up" by the organized gangs for purposes of organized criminal activity. Further, he stated in some cases (per state police and police outside of NO) NO police were paid off to release looters and even that in some cases the NO police participated.

Who could argue (other than the ACLU and F them) that immediate direct federal action was not needed?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:09:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
There is talk of abandoning Posse Comitatus. There were thousands of armed looters attacking authorities, preventing rescues and preying on the helpless. What does it take? Why wasn't an insurrection declared with the subsequent full weight of the Armed Forces crushing the looters (while leaving those armed in their homes unmolested).

If Posse Comitatus is abandoned or not, there needs to be crystal clarity that arms CANNOT be confiscated from those defending their homes. The number one lesson of this disaster should be that the law-abiding armed homeowner is NOT the problem.

I hope this is the focus of the NRA's efforts at this point.



I think we are learning after the fact that things weren't as displayed on tv. One shooting was rebroadcast a 1000 times.

I'm not saying things weren't bad, but I do believe that they were way overhyped.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:11:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Democracy has consequences, and unfortunately the people of New Orleans learned that the hard way.




CAN THE DEMOCRACY BS ALREADY!!! WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! REPEAT AFTER ME:


REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC



REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!!!!





Oh great, another ARFCOM pissing match over semantics.

Yes, formally the United States is a Representative Republic. However, it is colloquially known as a democracy, just like the UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, and the FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Germany, and like every other western nation. Now, did you have anything substantive to say about my point or did you just want to stir the shit?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:21:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 4:24:38 PM EDT by AROptics]
It seems all the authority necessary was already codified:

The US Code (10USC332-335) reads:

"§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

§ 334. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time."

END QUOTE

Section 334 seems appropriate in that the streets could be cleared, with the only requirement of the law-abiding to "retire peacebly to their abodes..." Seems like the infamous granny was doing just that.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:52:31 PM EDT
It would have saved the insurance companies a SHITPOT of money as well. Damages caused during an insurrection are not covered under common insurance policies.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:28:41 PM EDT
Whew...That was lucky. Can you imagine, the Federal Taxpayer would have been left with, like, a 200 billion dollar bill or something.
Top Top