Utopia Talk / Politics / Liberaltard Judge gives Hispanics #2

The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:40:57 AH, please quit fucking up the last few posts in a thread, we are trying to have an adult conversation.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:41:56 Forget the video, that may indeed be too extreme and it may be a misrepresentation of a gigantic community service organization as described in The American Thinker.. Please address the difference between the "national security force" and the "Civilian Expeditionary Workforce." Obviously they are two different organizations, according to Global Security, while the "national security force" is, in their opinion, a way of getting around Posse Comitatus.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 08:43:28 No it wasn't. I just posted the entire quote of Obama's that you are referring to use as your critic of "Obama's Army". Read the post and link again as many times as you need to get it to stain your brain.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 08:44:54 Here I'll be nice again to help you. http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200909170014 Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS September 17, 2009 9:56 am ET Conservative conspiracy theorists insist President Obama is determined to turn AmeriCorps into a "civilian national security force" akin to Hitler's SS. The claim originates from a single speech then-Sen. Obama delivered emphasizing the need for Americans to serve their communities. Needless to say, the claim has been widely debunked. Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS Beck claims Obama's "civilian national security force" is "what Hitler did with the SS," "what Saddam Hussein" did. Discussing Obama's "civilian national security force," Beck said, "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to, because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, "I'm not comparing" -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 8/27/09] WorldNetDaily: "Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. 'cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set.'" [WorldNetDaily, 7/16/09] The Truth The Experts At FactCheck.org Soundly Debunked This Conspiracy Theory: "Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context. "Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas. "Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold." Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: "[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. "We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. "This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up." [FactCheck.org, 11/11/08]
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 08:46:28 "AH, please quit fucking up the last few posts in a thread, we are trying to have an adult conversation. " Stop lying child.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:46:30 One more time: "Forget the video, that may indeed be too extreme and it may be a misrepresentation of a gigantic community service organization as described in The American Thinker."
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 08:47:49 It's the same topic that you are bitching about HR. Remember your statement that "obama's private police force is unconstitutional" It's the same thing we are talking about. Here it is again. http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200909170014 Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS September 17, 2009 9:56 am ET Conservative conspiracy theorists insist President Obama is determined to turn AmeriCorps into a "civilian national security force" akin to Hitler's SS. The claim originates from a single speech then-Sen. Obama delivered emphasizing the need for Americans to serve their communities. Needless to say, the claim has been widely debunked. Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS Beck claims Obama's "civilian national security force" is "what Hitler did with the SS," "what Saddam Hussein" did. Discussing Obama's "civilian national security force," Beck said, "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to, because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, "I'm not comparing" -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 8/27/09] WorldNetDaily: "Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. 'cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set.'" [WorldNetDaily, 7/16/09] The Truth The Experts At FactCheck.org Soundly Debunked This Conspiracy Theory: "Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context. "Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas. "Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold." Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: "[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. "We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. "This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up." [FactCheck.org, 11/11/08]
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:48:16 And as you describe in your post. But there is a difference between the "national security force" and the "Civilian Expeditionary Workforce." Obviously they are two different organizations, according to Global Security, while the "national security force" is, in their opinion, a way of getting around Posse Comitatus.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 08:50:44 That's their dumbass opinion. Again the full quote is in my post of what Obama said. Stupid Beckers and you alike take it way out of context and put your stupid conspiracy spin on it. Let's try again: http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200909170014 Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS September 17, 2009 9:56 am ET Conservative conspiracy theorists insist President Obama is determined to turn AmeriCorps into a "civilian national security force" akin to Hitler's SS. The claim originates from a single speech then-Sen. Obama delivered emphasizing the need for Americans to serve their communities. Needless to say, the claim has been widely debunked. Smear: AmeriCorps Is Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" Akin To Hitler's SS Beck claims Obama's "civilian national security force" is "what Hitler did with the SS," "what Saddam Hussein" did. Discussing Obama's "civilian national security force," Beck said, "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to, because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, "I'm not comparing" -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 8/27/09] WorldNetDaily: "Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. 'cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set.'" [WorldNetDaily, 7/16/09] The Truth The Experts At FactCheck.org Soundly Debunked This Conspiracy Theory: "Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context. "Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas. "Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold." Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: "[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. "We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. "This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up." [FactCheck.org, 11/11/08]
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:52:35 See God DaMNIT, there you go again. I have left the video behind and admitted that it may be too extreme and that your post is probably more accurate. I have moved on to a slightly different subject and you are stuck in low gear by making your same post three times. Catch up or lets end this now. I have other things to do.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 08:53:19 Make that four times.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 08:54:18 ^ You lying slimy fucking cunt lol
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:00:31 HR, were you or were you not the one that said: As for Constitutional violations: Where in the constitution does it allow for a national civilian police force? | | v Then you made your incorrect interjection that I was "confused." Regardless if we ignore the video you dumbfuck, the premise still remains. What Obama was referring to that you are harping on is was about what he said during that interview and ever since then all of the conservative nutjobs focused on that saying that Obama was a marxist, was how hitler got his hitler youth, the SS, blah blah blah blah blah. So again, were you or were you not referring to what Obama said in that interview?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:08:53 Man you sure named yourself appropriately. "One more time: "Forget the video, that may indeed be too extreme and it may be a misrepresentation of a gigantic community service organization as described in The American Thinker." "Sun Jun 20 08:48:16 And as you describe in your post." That is the last time I post that. If you are too stupid to to get it then you confirm my opinion of you.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:10:28 That is a dead subject. Lets move on.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:10:41 You answer my question this time. Were you or were you not referring to what Obama said in the interview?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:10:42 "In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009. Filnerâ??s bill would amend the United States code with the following: "Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms... or any offense against the United States." (Emphasis added.) The Posse Comitatus Act, passed on June 18, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property within the United States. H.R. 675 sidesteps Posse Comitatus by defining â??law enforcement officer of the Department of Defenseâ?? as "a civilian employee of the Department of Defense," including federal police officers, detectives, criminal investigators, special agents, and game law enforcement officers classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (the United States Office of Personnel Management is described as an "independent agency" of the U.S. government that manages the civil service of the federal government)." "According to Sec. Def. Robert Gates, defeating terrorism will require the use of more â??soft power, with civilians contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas. "Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts," the Associated Press reported in late 2007. (Civilian Expeditionary Workforce.) It should be noted that the original Civilian Expeditionary Workforce directive mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times, while the Obama revision does not mention "overseas" at all. In other words, the revised directive is designed for "emergency operations" in the United States. Both H.R. 675 and the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce directive will establish civilian â??soft powerâ?? under the direction of the Pentagon. Obama is now actively working to create a paramilitary "civilian national security force thatâ??s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-fundedâ?? as the military. In order to skirt Posse Comitatus, Obama's paramilitary brownshirts will be organized and run out of the Office of Personnel Management with orders coming from the Pentagon. In the recent past, the Pentagon sent operatives to snoop on anti-war and patriot demonstrations â?? for instance, Alex Jonesâ?? protest at the Federal Reserve was monitored by the Pentagon . In the not too distant future they will likely send â??civiliansâ?? with firearms and the power to arrest â??rightwing extremistsâ?? who represent, according to the Department of Homeland Security and numerous federalized police agencies, "offense against the United States." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14160
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:11:23 What happened to your lie about debating like an adult, lying cunt? lol
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:13:01 Dickhead - You answer my question this time. Were you or were you not referring to what Obama said in the interview? Asked and answered. Yes I was. Now do you want to move on to the subsequent subject?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 09:14:57 Hot Rod, in the previous thread you were accusing someone of being confused. In your post you were talking about the Civilian Expendtionary Force. Actually it is a reconstructering of the current policy. If you Google search Department of Defense Directive 1404.10 you can pull it up and read it for yourself. As I understand it, all it does is create another agency within the DoD that allows civil service personal to be added to a data base that would basically put them on a call list in the event they are needed. Civil service personell are previous military personell and as such are subject to be recalled to duty at any time. Under Pres. Bush a previous military man who served in Desert Storm and had been out of the military for 6 or 7 years was called back to active duty to go to Iraq. DoD 1404.10 allows for the structure of a group of people pulled from all ready existing civil service areas to serve on a limited basis in the Expeditionary Workforce. The option that allows them to be forced into service is much the same as the option the millitary has to recall soldiers who have been out of the military for years. As I understand it the Expeditionary Workforce would be used in areas where some active military could be replaced to be put in more combat related areas. That is take the place of a military person in one area so that military person could be deployed to another area. There are all ready a number of civil service people under different DoD directives that work in similar capacities.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:18:27 Byron, please catch up or stay out of this. That has all changed. I have moved on to a new subject that encompasses H.R. 675.
garyd Member	Sun Jun 20 09:20:28 He is adoophus you fuck headed ignramus. You on the other hand can't get by school ground tactics. Even your fellow leftist are starting to get sick of your act. Dickhead quoting media matters on anything is like quoting adoophus. It lies, misrepresents and can't understand half of what's being said in any case.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:21:15 "Asked and answered. Yes I was. Now do you want to move on to the subsequent subject? " So you were, as I suspected and correct about. That's what we were talking about. Then you incorrectly accused me of being confused when I wasn't confused and was correct about since the fucking beginning you dumbfuck. And now you are trying to "change the subject" by accusing me of being "confused" about the civilian national security force and the expeditionary workforce. Where I wasn't. I was responding to your: "As for Constitutional violations: Where in the constitution does it allow for a national civilian police force? "
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:21:36 "Byron, please catch up or stay out of this. That has all changed. I am trying to change to a new subject because I got so pwned and will do anything rather than admit it" - HR
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:22:05 "Dickhead quoting media matters on anything is like quoting adoophus. It lies, misrepresents and can't understand half of what's being said in any case." Stupid fuck, so the full quote of Obama is fake because you don't like the source? Get the fuck out of here you clown.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:23:30 "blub gurgle gurgle we mus kil sumwun glub glub" - gduh
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 09:25:41 >>Byron, please catch up or stay out of this. That has all changed. I have moved on to a new subject that encompasses H.R. 675. Ok then, what you are talking about is to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. What exactly is the issue you are having?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:28:05 Dickhead - Then you incorrectly accused me of being confused when I wasn't confused and was correct about since the fucking beginning you dumbfuck. Correction, I was confused. I wrote that wrong. Now, woul;d you care to comment on the differences between the two organizations?
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:31:38 ^ Poor redneck is so ignorant about the US, from the constitution to today lol
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:32:31 Why talk about the difference between the two organizations? There isn't really anything to talk about as you just admitted that you were confused on the topic and you introduce the other variable. And if HR 675 is what Bryon was talking about, what exactly is the problem?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:37:44 No, it is not what he was talking about and it is not what you are talking about. H.R. 675 is a sneaky way around a well established federal law. It allows the military to hire their own private civilian police force in order to circumvent Posse Comitatus. Please remind me to never get into another discussion with you because your dishonesty is insurmountable.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:39:00 Honesty complaints from Not hotrod/angel/JPJ/Liberal etc rofl...
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:40:07 ^-The Village Idiot.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:40:58 Mind those caps, compulsively lying filthy cunt lol
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:42:57 ^-THE VILLAGE IDIOT. Caps for emphasis, as if emphasis were needed in your case.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 09:44:22 "Please remind me to never get into another discussion with you because your dishonesty is insurmountable." What dishonesty? What was I dishonest about you fucktwat? Please point where I was dishonest? Also; amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. That's what HR 675 is about. You're problem is about ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY just as the same when Obama talked about a fucking "Civilian National Security Force" that conservative nutjobs took and ran amok with?
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:44:30 Mind those caps, Compulsively Lying Filthy Cunt lol Caps for emphasis, as if emphasis were needed in your case. I mean, you're known over the whole board as a compulsive liar, so really, they're pretty redundant.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 09:49:17 ""Please remind me to never get into another discussion with you because your dishonesty is insurmountable." What dishonesty? What was I dishonest about you fucktwat? Please point where I was dishonest? " Christs sake, dont you know he's utterly impossible to talk to and will tell any conceivable or unconceivable lie, just say anything whatsoever, rather than give a straight answer? It is impossible, once and for all, to debate this lying little cunt. Always has been and always will be.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:50:19 The Department of Defense has no reason or right to a civilian police force with authority over civilians. They have C.I.D., NCIS, et al for crimes that take place on military bases or involving military personnel. End of discussion. Good bye.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 09:50:38 Hot Rod, I think you are reading into this way too much. What the HR 675 is doing is allowing as you are being critical of for the military to use law enforcement. The reason for this is about our military is spread too then and that there isn't enough MPs. As it stands as well, those "law enforcement officials" didn't have full police powers and now they are given such powers. This has nothing to do with your extreme radical view that it's a step closer to having an SS.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 09:54:01 Byron - As it stands as well, those "law enforcement officials" didn't have full police powers and now they are given such powers. Which is a violation of Posse Comitatus. "The Department of Defense has no reason or right to a civilian police force with authority over civilians."
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 10:20:45 Its an AMENDMENT. You do know what are amendments are for correct?
garyd Member	Sun Jun 20 10:30:49 Depends on the type of amendment... You can amend a law and you can amend the constituion. The second is far more difficult...
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 10:36:00 It is an amendment to a Bill designed to circumvent Posse Comitatus. It changes the language and meaning of The Bill by giving The Department of Defense their own private police force to be used against American civilians. "In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009." "The Department of Defense has no reason or right to a civilian police force with authority over civilians."
Ninja Member	Sun Jun 20 12:14:50 What exactly are you freaking out about Hot Rod? This bill was referred to subcommittee in March of 2009 and has made no progress. This is not law.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 12:39:57 hes freaking out that the potus is black and trying to hide it behind one of his usual weak ass nonsense arguments.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 12:41:46 I sincerely hope it doesn't. The Military has no need of a private civilian police force. Actually [i has been referred to three committees: House Armed Services, Subcommittee on House Judiciary, Subcommittee on House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Ninja Member	Sun Jun 20 12:48:00 It is listed as being referred to the same subcommittee twice on the same day. BACK IN 2009!
Ninja Member	Sun Jun 20 12:51:52 Face it rod, you keep jumping from freekout to freekout that have nothing to do with the original topic and are all baseless hysteria. Thanks for never even making a logical argument about what is wrong with cumulative voting (as chosen by the village instead of the government recommended voting districts).
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 14:37:25 Hot Rod, I am sure that you will deny having any contempt for Obama, but I am going to alert you of this fact. Recent legislative events On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[3] Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that: The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... 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... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[4] In 2008, these changes were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act So again, what exactly is the issue you are having?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 14:45:18 I have to wonder, did you also have issues with the Patriot Act too, Hot Rod? If so what specifics did you have with it?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 14:51:44 Oh more infor for you. Just read some of the comments, alot of them are police officers explaining what this bill does. As I've already explained. http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_675.html
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 14:53:34 If you see closely it isnt all about the crazy conspiracy, hostile, gestapo, brownshirts, hitler youth, and SS you're having such an issue with. Again, I thank you for your effort into this discussion. Once again you have enlighten me by offering again no substance.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 16:45:27 Who said anything about conspiracy or any of that other shit you are making up. " KB July 1, 2009, 8:43am (report abuse) The bill needs to properly limit the jurisdiction of such officers to places and property under the control of the military. The DOD has specific, limited jurisdiction over its installations and facilities, and those limitations should apply to its civilian Police Officers. For example, Park Rangers are credentialed federal LEOs, but their jurisdiction is properly limited to the facilities managed by the National Park Service. The jurisdictional limitations for civilian DOD police are similarly geographic in nature, and are appropriate to DOD's mission and interests. Moreover, I am both a credentialed law enforcement officer and a military reservist; some of the civilian DOD officers I've seen are sharp, but the majority are angry mall cops (sorry, guys, you know its true). Overall, they are going to need some serious training and re-orientation toward real police work and police culture before it will be appropriate to give them warrant service, arrest, and 24/7 carry authority."
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 16:51:42 ^ Zombie. you need to shoot him in the head or he'll never stop crawling slowly and stupidly after you
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 17:38:31 Surely you jest. What is associated with this bill? The overally paranoid conservative who is touting this as Obama's own national "civilian" police force. If you type H.r. 675 bill in google you will find a plethora of sites calling it the aforementioned. Unless you are totally oblivious about that notion. Here is something I found on policelink.com. "You guys are overly paranoid. Maybe this bill wasnâ??t clear, but this would do nothing but give the 0083 police officers that are currently employed by the Department of Defense the same authority as officers who work for the U.S. Mint, VA Hospitals, Pentagon, U.S. Capitol, CIA, NSA, Department of Energy and a host of other federal agencies currently have. The authority is always limited to the property that the officer works on and the streets immediately surrounding that federal property. Many of the vary officers that you are affraid of are given arrest authority from the states they are located in, and the â??special agents (NCIS, AFOSI, ACID)â?? already have this authority, and to my knowledge havnâ??t abused it at all. Really guys, this is about the proper protection of the Military Bases that house the troops that we all support, as well as the other Defense agencies that they work for. This does not include active duty MPâ??s which is why Posse Commitatus doesnâ??t apply, and should never apply to civillian police officer. And for the record I am a â??DODâ?? Police Officer, I have passed a 16 week police academy and attended many advanced law enforcement schools, despite all of my training, I have no statutory arrest authority, and have been jammed up because of it in the past. I couldnâ??t care less about protestors, but the abusive husband, drug dealer, thief, rapist, or other individuals who commit crime in my jurrisdiction. I shouldnâ??t have to second guess what I can and cant do when dealing with them. We conservatives are hurting ourselves with this one. Help us pass this bill ASAP" Again, what exactly is the issue? And where was your outrage when the Patriot Act was passed that gave the government unseen powers than before or does it not count because it was another president's term?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 17:47:51 >-Surely you jest. What is associated with this bill? The overally paranoid conservative who is touting this as Obama's own national "civilian" police force. I thought I told to catch up or shut up. Go away and come back when you know what you are talking about.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:07:26 Heed your own advice. As it appears you haven't had any clue what you were talking about. How many concessions thus far messr hot rod? Are you claiming that your scrutinity of this particular bill is in no way shape or form in any association with the conservative crew who are attacking this concept because its all part of obama's socialist agenda?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:12:07 Yes, that is why I told you to catch up. By the way, the "conservative crew" is not attacking this concept because its all part of obama's socialist agenda. Now are you going to go back and learn what is being talked about or are you going to keep babbling without knowing?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:13:11 This is what exactly happened during the h.r. 3200 bill when some of us took the time to read some of the bill in response to your claims that no one has read it or shouldn't comment unless they read it. And I invited you to discuss it but you always went to hide. Only then to continue to post links from various sites condemning it even more and when you were again challenged on specifics especially if you had read it you declined or refused ti answer. Only the continuance of its scrutiny. My, my it does appear you haven't changed your ways coming back from the dead.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:13:13 You may have to go back to the first thread.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:14:27 Idiot.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:20:05 >>Yes, that is why I told you to catch up. By the way, the "conservative crew" is not attacking this concept because its all part of obama's socialist agenda. Now are you going to go back and learn what is being talked about or are you going to keep babbling without knowing? what? And you think the statements you have made showed any understanding to the topic at hand? I provided various sources, some of whom are dod police officers indicating that this isn't some way to "circumvent" another law. Also, like I said run and search on google typing this bill and tell me how many rightwing extremists are ridiculing Obama as it being part of his socialistic agenda and having his own "brownshirts"?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:22:46 Damn man, you are dumber than an iron ball. Go away.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:24:49 So, What exactly is wrong with this bill? How does it circumvent the other law when it even doesn't apply to it? Where was your outrage when the patriot act was passed?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:29:18 >>Damn man, you are dumber than an iron ball. Go away. I see. Another concession from you. Let me once again thank you for the exhilerating, definately one-sided discussion. You have certainly shown that your skills in dialogue are still lacking as for the grasp of the subjects. Perhaps next time you will become more informed about the subject instead of being the bullhorn for obama's critices. Oh, course that has nothing to do with it as you are an independent thinker.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 18:33:46 the head. You need to blow its head off or chop it off. otherwise the zombie never stops.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:43:06 Look, this is my last word on this. h.r. 675 has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, his secret army, the "conservative crew", the "national security force" or the "Civilian Expeditionary Workforce", or anything else your one track minmd is hung up on. It is a separate issue altogether.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 18:48:40 The head. Go for the head.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 18:51:45 What head, yours and Bryon's and Dickheads are all empty. It is really a toss up as to who is the stupidest, but I think you have a slight edge.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 18:54:38 And the h.r. 675 has no where of circumventing the current federal law as you claimed among others. Are we really going to do this dance again? All this bill may do if it passes is give law enforcement powers to those who are "police" officers but yet have the full authority due to certain statutes that prevents them for performing certain duties that are related to their jurisdiction. As pointed out by some of those who work for "dod" they are only receiving those powers to be on the same level as their counterparts. "This does not include active duty MPâ??s which is why Posse Commitatus doesnâ??t apply, and should never apply to civillian police officer." Again, what issue are you having?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 19:15:38 Thank you, by once again declaring your ignorance you have conceded. Bye.
Ninja Member	Sun Jun 20 19:20:28 TG can't even come up with an argument. TG = pwnt.
Adolf Hitler Member	Sun Jun 20 19:29:53 Your head of course. the zombie head. Youre a zombie and the only way to stop a zombie is to destroy the head else you'll never shut your childish nonsense up. I'd probably kick it off. Might take a couple of kicks to dislodge that thick head completely.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 19:43:51 Hot Rod I have asked you numerous times what issues do you have with the bill. You haven't answered them, yet you keep exclaiming that I am 'ignorant' about it. What and where exactly am I wrong. I provided you sources. You ignore them. I ask you specifics. You don't answer. I can only deduce that you have no argument, nor any other knowledge pertaining towards the subject. I am not suprised at the least. You are being your typical self.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 19:46:11 Ninja, I have already given my argument several times. No one wants to bother with looking it up. As always they just want me to keep repeating myself while they comntinue to ignore what I am telling them. Here, you want to see how Posse Comitatus has been eroded? This will take you current through 2000. The Myth of Posse Comitatus Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve October 2000 Major Craig Trebilcock is a member of the Judge Advocate Generalâ??s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve. He is assigned as an operational law attorney with the 153d Legal Support Organization in Norristown, PA. His area of specialization includes the laws applicable to U.S. forces engaged in operations in both the United States and abroad. Major Trebilcock is a graduate of the University of Michigan (A.B. with high honors, 1982) and the University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1985). His military education includes the Judge Advocate General Basic Course (1988) and Advanced Course (1992), U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (1997), and the U.S. Navy War College International Relations Seminar (2000). Major Trebilcock is a civilian immigration attorney with the firm of Barley, Snyder, Senft, & Cohen in York, PA. The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense.[1] In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the actâ??s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense. History The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means â??the power of the county,â?? reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States. Application of the Act To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the National Guard.[3] The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The intent of the act is to prevent the military forces of the United States from becoming a national police force or guardia civil. Accordingly, the act prohibits the use of the military to â??execute the laws.â??[4,5] Execution of the laws is perceived to be a civilian police function, which includes the arrest and detention of criminal suspects, search and seizure activities, restriction of civilian movement through the use of blockades or checkpoints, gathering evidence for use in court, and the use of undercover personnel in civilian drug enforcement activities.[6] The federal courts have had several opportunities to define what behavior by military personnel in support of civilian law enforcement is permissible under the act. The test applied by the courts has been to determine whether the role of military personnel in the law enforcement operation was â??passiveâ?? or â??active.â?? Active participation in civilian law enforcement, such as making arrests, is deemed a violation of the act, while taking a passive supporting role is not.[7] Passive support has often taken the form of logistical support to civilian police agencies. Recognizing that the military possesses unique equipment and uniquely trained personnel, the courts have held that providing supplies, equipment, training, facilities, and certain types of intelligence information does not violate the act. Military personnel may also be involved in planning law enforcement operations, as long as the actual arrest of suspects and seizure of evidence is carried out by civilian law enforcement personnel.[8] The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the 19th century, when the distinction between criminal law enforcement and defense of the national borders was clearer. Today, with the advent of technology that permits weapons of mass destructionâ??chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponsâ??to be transported by a single person, the line between police functions and national security concerns has blurred. As a matter of policy, Western nations have labeled terrorists â??criminalsâ?? to be prosecuted under domestic criminal laws. Consistent with this, the Department of Justice has been charged as the lead U.S. agency for combating terrorism. However, not all terrorist acts are planned and executed by non-state actors. Terrorism refers to illegal attacks on civilians and other nonmilitary targets by either state or non-state actors. This new type of threat requires a reassessment of traditional military roles and missions along with an examination of the relevance and benefits of the Posse Comitatus Act. Erosion of the Act While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges. One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the â??war on drugs.â?? Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371â??381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areasâ??immigration control and tariff enforcement. The use of the military in opposing drug smuggling and illegal immigration was a significant step away from the actâ??s central tenet that there was no proper role for the military in the direct enforcement of the laws. The legislative history explains that this new policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military involvement still amounted to an indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct enforcement.[9] The weakness of the analysis of passive versus direct involvement in law enforcement was most graphically demonstrated in the tragic 1999 shooting of a shepherd by marines who had been assigned a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration in the remote Southwest. An investigation revealed that for some inexplicable reason the 16-year-old shepherd fired his weapon in the direction of the marines. Return fire killed the boy. This tragedy demonstrates that when armed troops are placed in a position where they are being asked to counter potential criminal activity, it is a mere semantic exercise to argue that the military is being used in a passive support role. The fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine. Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331â??334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles â??race riotsâ?? of the early 1990s. Federal military personnel may also be used pursuant to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C., section 5121, in times of natural disaster upon request from a state governor. In such an instance, the Stafford Act permits the president to declare a major disaster and send in military forces on an emergency basis for up to ten days to preserve life and property. While the Stafford Act authority is still subject to the criteria of active versus passive, it represents a significant exception to the Posse Comitatus Actâ??s underlying principle that the military is not a domestic police force auxiliary. An infrequently cited constitutional power of the president provides an even broader basis for the president to use military forces in the context of homeland defense. This is the presidentâ??s inherent right and duty to preserve federal functions. In the past this has been recognized to authorize the president to preserve the freedom of navigable waterways and to put down armed insurrection. However, with the expansion of federal authority during this century into many areas formerly reserved to the states (transportation, commerce, education, civil rights) there is likewise an argument that the presidentâ??s power to preserve these â??federalâ?? functions has expanded as well. The use of federal troops in the South during the 1960s to preserve access to educational institutions for blacks was an exercise of this constitutional presidential authority. In the past five years, the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act has continued with the increasingly common use of military forces as security for essentially civilian events. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, over ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed under the partial rationale that they were present to deter terrorism. The use of active-duty military forces in a traditional police security role did not raise any serious questions under the act, even though these troops would clearly have been in the middle of a massive law enforcement emergency had a large-scale terrorist incident occurred. The only questions of propriety arose when many of these troops were then employed as bus drivers or to maintain playing fields. This led to a momentary but passing expression of displeasure from Congress.[10] Homeland Defense The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in an era when the threat to national security came primarily from the standing armies and navies of foreign powers. Today the equation for national defense and security has changed significantly. With the fall of the Soviet Union our attention has been divertedâ??from the threat of aggression by massed armies crossing the plains of Europe to the security of our own soil against biological or chemical terrorism. Rather than focusing on massed Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles as our most imminent threat, we are increasingly more aware of the destructive potential of new forms of asymmetric warfare. For instance, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment states that 100 kilograms of dry powdered anthrax released under ideal meteorological conditions could kill up to three million people in a city the size of Washington, DC.[11] The chemical warfare attacks carried out by Japanese terrorists in the subways of Tokyo during the 1990s heightened our sense of vulnerability. The Oklahoma City bombing and the unsuccessful attempt to topple the World Trade Center have our domestic security planners looking inward for threats against the soil of the United States from small but technologically advanced threats of highly motivated terrorists. What legal bar does the Posse Comitatus Act present today to using the military to prevent or respond to a biological or chemical attack on the soil of the United States? In view of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act in the past 20 years, the answer is â??not much.â?? The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the militaryâ??s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331â??334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the actâ??s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.[12] Conclusion Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter. But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands. http://www...ticles/trebilcock.htm#_ednref1
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 19:46:52 Yeah, I read the whole thing.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 19:57:37 Holy fucking christ are you people kidding me? Ok let's start at the beginning. Roddy, you're dumbass spouts off how the fucking constitution is being infringed upon and you were asked to fucking show how on two specifics on your claims You did, one where you were shown how fucking completely, utterly, stupidly, ignorantly retarded you are. And then your dumb fucking bleeding puss oozing blubbering vagina posts a link about Obama and his SS or whatever only to turn around and say ignore that video as its too extreme? And you expect the UP community here to believe that what you're saying Has nothing to do with Obama being president and that he isn't violating the constitution? Hello!! Fucking dumbass high school drop out! That's your whole modus operendi. God damn dude! Here we are now another thread almsot full talking about god knows what anymore but you are being asked simple fucking questions And you have the audacity to say that the poster is ignorant about the subject? If so just fucking answer his question or fucking Make a seperate thread or post detailing what the fuck you are talking about. And if you can't do that? Then shut the fuck up. It's that easy. Stupid fucking high school dropout. You're worse than The Children, RoB, kreel, and dakyron rolled into one.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:03:29 >-Hello!! Fucking dumbass high school drop out! That's your whole modus operendi. Yes, I pay attention and learn from a discussion and admit when I am wrong. You should try it sometime. "h.r. 675 has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, his secret army, the "conservative crew", the "national security force" or the "Civilian Expeditionary Workforce", or anything else your one track minmd is hung up on. It is a separate issue altogether."
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:05:59 Approach it as a separate issue without bring past issues into it and we have something to talk about.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:06:50 Hot Rod, once again how does this bill 675 affect the current federal law. What is the issue that you have. As it stands it does not circumvent the PC act. Its only in regards to civilian police forces that are under the DoD that are now being or possibly being granted full law enforcement powers in their respective jurisdictions as pointed out in variouis sources that I've provided. Why do you keep ignoring them unless your stance is that those sources and people from law enforcement backgrounds are incorrect?
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 20:15:39 You don't learn shit. You still pull the same shit you always do. Even when you are shown wrong. Your stance still remains. The whole oil rig shit ring a bell?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:17:00 >-being granted full law enforcement powers in their respective jurisdictions... That is where you and they are wrong. H.R. 675 gives The Department of Defense (i.e.: The Military) a private civilian police force with authority over the civilian population, it extends their jurisdiction into an area where it doesn't belong. That is what Posse Comitatus was designed to prevent. I posted from your list, did you read it? Did you read the history of Posse Comitatus that I posted? "KB July 1, 2009, 8:43am (report abuse) The bill needs to properly limit the jurisdiction of such officers to places and property under the control of the military. The DOD has specific, limited jurisdiction over its installations and facilities, and those limitations should apply to its civilian Police Officers. For example, Park Rangers are credentialed federal LEOs, but their jurisdiction is properly limited to the facilities managed by the National Park Service. The jurisdictional limitations for civilian DOD police are similarly geographic in nature, and are appropriate to DOD's mission and interests. Moreover, I am both a credentialed law enforcement officer and a military reservist; some of the civilian DOD officers I've seen are sharp, but the majority are angry mall cops (sorry, guys, you know its true). Overall, they are going to need some serious training and re-orientation toward real police work and police culture before it will be appropriate to give them warrant service, arrest, and 24/7 carry authority."
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:24:39 What you posted only confirms moreso what I've been saying. That specific poster is giving his opinion that in order for this 675 to pass that those who are affected would need to be more adequately trained. Again, what is the issue? Yes I've read it. Knew about it the entire time when I found my sources. Especially the part on how there were issues with it when the patriot act was passed. Hence my question why were you not outraged when the patriot act was passed?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:31:55 Ignore the main point why dont you? "For example, Park Rangers are credentialed federal LEOs, but their jurisdiction is properly limited to the facilities managed by the National Park Service. The jurisdictional limitations for civilian DOD police are similarly geographic in nature, and are appropriate to DOD's mission and interests." H.R. 675 would give the DoD Police jurisdiction over the civilian population anywhere in The United States. They could conceivabl\y issue parking tickets at 5th. Avenue and Park Avenue. There power should and must be limited to their jurisdiction. Except under diret order of the president in an emergency.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:35:07 >-Hence my question why were you not outraged when the patriot act was passed? Because we were, in fact, in the middle of a national emergency. The President had declared such.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:36:50 Once again the poster you cited and I cited said that the 675 limits or needs to be limited to their respective jurisdictions. Which is what I've said to you for many posts now. Those affected still have to abide by the DoDD standards as well. You are aware that the DoD has various divisions, yes?
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:43:03 Yes. Army, Navy and Air Force. >-Once again the poster you cited and I cited said that the 675 limits or needs to be limited to their respective jurisdictions. Which is what I've said to you for many posts now. Then we are in complete agreement.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:43:34 Hot Rod it will still be limited. A effing DoD civilian police will not have jurisdiction in another state unless granted specifically by statutes warrning it. A highway patrol officer has technically jurisdiction of their entire respective state, however. Only in their jurisdiction they are granted. Meaning that if trooper bill is in jurisidiction A. He cannot travel to jurisidiction B and enforce the law as it would be out of his jurisdicition. And your stance that it was a national emergnency doesn't hold water. As the military was still limited and still cannot force any civilian laws.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:44:09 This needs to be changed to limit the DoD police to their geographic jurisdiction â??Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms â??(a) Authority- The Secretary of Defense may authorize any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink â??(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink â??(2) to make arrests without a warrant--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 2 â??(A) for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of that officer; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink â??(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink â??(3) to carry firearms.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:47:37 >>Yes. Army, Navy and Air Force. Not only those. Go look it up.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:49:44 >-A effing DoD civilian police will not have jurisdiction in another state unless granted specifically by statutes warrning it. DoD is Federal. Byron - And your stance that it was a national emergnency doesn't hold water. As the military was still limited and still cannot force any civilian laws. I thought you said that you read that piece I posted about the history of PC and that you all about it. The president has always had the authority to override PC in times of war or certain national emergencies.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:51:58 "The DOD is the major tenant of The Pentagon building near Washington, D.C., and has three major components â?? the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Among the many DOD agencies are the Missile Defense Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and the National Security Agency (NSA). The department also operates several joint service schools, including the National War College."
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:52:27 >>This needs to be changed to limit the DoD police to their geographic jurisdiction Yes and?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 20:58:59 >>I thought you said that you read that piece I posted about the history of PC and that you all about it. The president has always had the authority to override PC in times of war or certain national emergencies. You're misunderstanding. >>DoD is Federal. You misinterpret. Allow me to elborate. Read my example again regarding the highway patrol officer. We are talking about federal property in their respective jurisidiction. You have a federal police officer and he works under TVA. He cannot go to NY to a federal site to enforce the law there unless trained in that states specific laws to enforce on his or her jursidiction permitted by specific statutes. This concept is not hard to grasp.
The Guardian Member	Sun Jun 20 20:59:08 And that is my point. We are in agreement. End of discussion.
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 21:05:34 What the hell? You're having a terrible memory lapse, selective memory, or poor comprehension skills. I've said this many posts ago and you accused me of being ignorant about it. Furthermore challenging me when I've been telling you that this bill will not grant dod police forces anything more than what they are limited to by their respective jrusidictions. Did you fail to understand this premise?
Byron Member	Sun Jun 20 21:08:19 And you're argument has been that only the military will have these powers and their police forces will start making arrest on every level and capcitiy. I've been arguing the opposite as this bill is target to specific agencies within the DoD.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 21:11:41 LOL. Oh now yall are in agreement? Holy shit bryon has only been spoutung that point for half the thread now. And now you're agreeing with him. Wow.
Dickhead UPer Member	Sun Jun 20 21:12:22 Pedorodfag.
	show deleted posts