I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

40,000 Boots On The Ground - DoD Proposed Rule

~Snooper~

We had a GREAT discussion today on my BTR show with mdconservative, Danger Girl and myself in regards to the Posse Comitatus Act (revised 1981, Public Law 97-86) and the current upheaval of some folks on the left and right over the Proposed Rule in 32 CFR Part 185, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). This "rule" is not law yet, merely "proposed". And, it is nothing new either. This proposal has been discussed, shelved, revisited, shelved, discussed, debated and recently, revived yet again and officially "proposed" since the Clinton Administration.

One of the many items of interest to me is this rule acknowledges, as far back as the Clinton Administration, that the terrorists, those once classified as ineffective and merely a nuisance, backwards and inept cranks, are actively seeking WMDs whether or not they are nuclear or biological or chemical. We have been hearing since 2001, specifically 91101, that President Bush and his Administration were utilizing fear mongering to police the world. This proposed rule which has now been made "public" negates that banter. Thank God. I have been saying this for a whole lot longer than even the Clinton Administration because I was once "in the know". I still am but that is besides the point. The point is, the threat had been real and it is getting more real by the minute. 91101 solidified that fact except to the power hungry fools due to the lust for political power. President Bush had to be demonized his entire Administration via known lies in order for the Enemies of The State to become the Ruling Party. The "ruling party" is what cracks me up and not in a funny "haha" way.

Danger Girl provide the following links for discussion: U.S. Northern Command gains dedicated response force, Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, an Army Times abortion (and we all know this), Emergency Response Units Won’t Perform Law Enforcement, Official Says, New Rapid-Response Forces to Bolster Homeland Defense Mission (also at Right Side News). All of these articles state that the Troops to be deployed are not going to be involved in law enforcement and I have no doubt that they truly believe that and the objectives stated are honest and forthright, except the Army Times article...NEVER trust that rag. However, that isn't what the proposed rule stipulates. I understand governmentese and I have learned in my 53 years on this planet not to trust anyone in DC as far as you can throw.

The following articles are worth the read both in support of and against this proposed rule. (This is my first ever writing on this issue and won't be my last); Congress Funds Five More WMD Civil Support Teams, Guard-Staffed WMD Civil Support Teams Slated for Increase, Home From Iraq, Army Brigade Trains for Homeland Response Mission, Assessing Plans to Deploy U.S. Military on the Homeland Security Front, Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways, Police State: 20,000 Uniformed Troops inside the US by 2011, From Hell's Heart, BushHitler Stabs At Thee With 20,000 Soldiers!, CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?, The Age Of Tension: Beware The Special Events, The Age Of Tension: Beware The Special Events, YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK - U.S. troops' new mission: America's 'special events' Proposal would allow civilians to activate Army to prevent 'environmental damage'; The Myth of Posse Comitatus, Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security.

I have specific issues with this "rule" and seeing that this "rule" will become Federal Law when approved, I will be watching the amending that will be taking place as the debate heats up and trust me, the debate will heat up.

First of all, the POTUS, no matter who it may be, already has the Constitutional Authority to address this "crisis", if there is a crisis at all. I think there is one and has been a crisis for a very long time. It just wasn't politically expedient to bring this up officially until the dreaded "war criminals" GWB and VP-C were either impeached or imprisoned or drawn and quartered for crimes not committed...so much for the libtard version of Due Process. As I said earlier, this "crisis" was ignored by our own home-grown sycophants for political expediency. It is only now that GWB's term is at an end and the New Guy is about to take his place that this issue has been officially declared a Clear and Present Danger. The timing is suspect for many reasons.

Second, we already have Posse Comitatus in place. There are some that say it needs to be sent to the dust heap of stupid laws. That may very well be - my jury is still out on that one - but the fact of the matter is that the Posse Comitatus Act is CURRENTLY law and in place. There isn't any getting around that until such a time that it is rescinded or another law is passed that negates Posse Comitatus.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of my bothersome issues, I would like to point out that there are some, mostly on the left, that are still suffering from BDS - and now ODS - that are claiming that this is how GWB is going to declare Marshal Law and never leave the White House. These people, namely this one that is a self-vaunted "intelligent" type (sound familiar to anyone?), are just plain brain dead. It claims to be brilliant at breakfast and I suspect that IT doesn't eat much:
"This domestic troop deployment looks at best to be part of the Bush Administration's last-minute plans to leave its fascist mark on this country in perpetuity before leaving. At worst it's a sign that the current Administration has no intention of leaving at all."
Good grief, as Charlie Brown likes to say. We will call this "brilliant one" a dunce to set the record straight. A sitting POTUS doesn't need this "proposed rule" that isn't law yet to declare Marshall Law. These types merely expose themselves as the misguided, clueless and uneducated that they are. And remember, these fools vote and this one more than likely thinks that Palin was Czarbie's VP running mate. I don't know this for sure but it would not surprise me at all. So, on to the meat of my issues with this rule...

No matter how many DoD officials or military officers say that the intent is to protect and to serve, they MUST follow the Rule of Law as the POTUS says it is. Period, no matter who the POTUS is. They follow orders of the chief law enforcement official (POTUS) and the CIC (POTUS). It is that simple. I have no doubt that the Path of Good Intentions is valid and admirable. I am not doubting the verbiage issued by such leaders. My issue is that of abuse or the potential for abuse due to the ambiguity and vagueness contained in the text of the Proposed Rule.
This proposed rule establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for DSCA, supplements regulations regarding military support for civilian law enforcement, and sets forth policy guidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA when requested by civil authorities and approved by the appropriate DoD authority, or as directed by the President, within the United States... [...]
If the Troops will not be involved with civilian law enforcement, the emphasis above needs to be stricken and replaced with verbiage stating that there will be no law enforcement at all. That is not what our Troops are for unless called upon by the Governors of the States. In the text of the "proposal", it is never clearly defined as to how the Troops will "supplement regulations regarding military support for civilian law enforcements". Troops are not considered as "civilian". That only happens when "off-duty" (sort of) and when discharged from service.
[...] Legislative changes over the years have made the existing guidance outdated and inconsistent with current law and the current organizational structure of the Department of Defense. This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities. [...]
All of the emphasis is the above excerpt are much too vague to me and are subject to interpretation. Also, in the remaining verbiage of the proposal, none of the above is clearly defined or stated. Period. This is unacceptable. Remember, once this proposal becomes Federal Law, the military are bound by Oath to uphold it whether they agree with the "interpretation" or not. The more I read this potential law, the spookier it gets, especially with a Marxist soon to assume the throne.
[...] It has been certified that 32 CFR part 185 does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1) The States;
(2) The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. [...]
I claim bull hockeys! In preceding verbiage before this excerpted piece, it is stated that there is NO direct effects and here we have that it doesn't have "substantial direct affects"...make up their minds, please. Just because someone says a certain thing is so, from experience, the more vague a law is the more abuse of it there will be. Especially if an activist SCOTUS gets a hold of it.

No where in the rule is Congress referred to as being in the loop. The loops consists of the DoD and POTUS. Period. The end. It is an either-or scenario which is a dangerous position to be in as a "civilian" status citizen of the United States. This rule needs lots of work and I am going to send this post as part of the "response" the DoD has stated we can submit. Click the link provided above for the pdf document to obtain the mailing address to send your response and or comments/approval or disapproval.
[...] Imminently Serious Conditions.
Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage. Under these conditions, timely prior authority from higher headquarters to provide DSCA may not be possible before action is necessary for effective response. [...]
There is already in place provisions for the above. All of it. What in the hell do we need a NEW rule? Please forgive me if I sound a little off the mark here or if I am saying that I don't want our Troops to respond to an attack from within or without. Our Troops are much better trained at dealing with attacks and making war on our enemies from within or without. That much is more than obvious. However, the ambiguity of this proposal and the blatant vagueness of it coupled with the timing of it sends chills up and down my spine. I have my reasons for this but choose not to disclose it at this time. I did it today on the show previously linked.
[...] Special Event. An international or domestic event, contest, activity, or meeting, which by its very nature, or by specific statutory or regulatory authority, may require security, safety, and/or other logistical support or assistance fro the Department of Defense. [...]
Sorry. Not anywhere near clear enough at all. I was told by my guests whom I respect very much in many ways said that "meetings" are considered to be anything involving the President or Vice President and I agree. However, that isn't what this rule states. It needs to be more specific. And, what is the definition of a "domestic event"? Knock. Knock. What is a "contest"? What is an "activity"? The vagueness is 100% unacceptable.

On page 3 of this proposed rule, there is a heading called, §185.4 Policy. Therein is where the vast majority of my "problems" with this document lies. In previous verbiage, it is stated that there are no financial burdens on anyone yet: (d) All requests for DSCA shall be written and include a commitment to reimburse the Department of Defense. Waivers or exceptions to reimbursement must be consistent with the law and/or DoD policies. If there is to be no financial hardships involved, where and why are there commitments to reimburse anyone for anything? Again, knock, knock. This next one is a killer...
[...] (h) Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances or perform civilian law enforcement functions (e.g., search, seizure, arrest, and surveillance) unless specifically authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of title 10, U.S.C.). [...]
Really? So much for the Marines stepping in during the riots in LA. So much for Troops stepping in during Katrina and Rita. Oh. Wait. Except when authorized by POTUS or SecDef. Really? What happened to the Governors? The next section, (i), contradicts (h).
[...] (i) Only the Secretary of Defense, or a designated representative, may approve requests from civil authorities for defense assistance during civil disturbances; [...]
Not very well defined, is it? Or, is it?

You will need to care enough about this issue to download, save and print this Proposed Rule in order to understand it fully. I merely excerpted the most questionable portions and left the less questionable aspects out for future posts. If we already have provisions currently published as law, why in the hell do we need this new law? Why not, if it is deemed required to have "clarification", do we not clarify the laws currently in standing? The timing and substance of the proposal reeks of a Police State potential. However...

However, I do understand the need for clarification and I do understand the intent and I agree with the intent. I am merely demanding a more definitive and specific "new law". This proposal needs lots of work. I don't like it at all.

Expect more BTR shows on this subject in the future, especially when the politicians get more serious about it.

I want to thank my guests I had on the show and I am sure we will be discussing this issue for quite some time.