quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
At worst they decided to become stupid and try for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX moment. In which case the US Government should just pass Posse Comatitus and tell the US Army: "We want that property back minus the terrorists".

Wow. You really are an idiot. You really don't realize the passe comitatus act was passed to prevent the army from being used for domestic law enforcement.....

No, actually, your the idiot. The bill was passed into law to prevent the US Military from being used as law enforcement in most circumstances. However, if the President signs a specific document, federal armies can be mobilized and used to handle any number of threats. For example, if the government had intel on a major terrorist plotting to blow up a city, the President could order special forces to act via this document.

Therefore, what I stated was correct and you really should re-read the act....

quote:

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement [which is what phydeaux was referencing].[1]

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

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

quote:

10 U.S.C. § 375.

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

quote:

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. 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, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. 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.[7]

quote:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think the US Army should be mobilized to blast every one of these terrorists off the face of the earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Bama, I thought we were discussing the occupation of a building by armed individuals?

Personally, IMO, they served their time, were prosecuted under the wrong statute, since the orginal charges were under a freaking terrorism law, AND to top it off, they did nothing more than what the BLM would do and does do in order to prevent major fires on BLM controlled lands.

But, the OP did start this by saying a group of armed militia took over a building.

A group that follows the Sovereign Citizen philosophy which basically believes there is no government of authority higher than that of the county.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think the US Army should be mobilized to blast every one of these terrorists off the face of the earth.

Like they did at Wounded Knee, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Bama, I thought we were discussing the occupation of a building by armed individuals?

Personally, IMO, they served their time, were prosecuted under the wrong statute, since the orginal charges were under a freaking terrorism law, AND to top it off, they did nothing more than what the BLM would do and does do in order to prevent major fires on BLM controlled lands.

But, the OP did start this by saying a group of armed militia took over a building.

A group that follows the Sovereign Citizen philosophy which basically believes there is no government of authority higher than that of the county.

Yes, the OP, and the leftists on here want to focus on the tactic and ignore the merits of their position. When groups on the left, for example burning down portions of Baltimore or Ferguson they excuse the violence but when someone on the right does something to protest a blatant injustice that could possibly lead to violence they want tanks sent in to wipe them out. We are looking at the typical double standard here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
At worst they decided to become stupid and try for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX moment. In which case the US Government should just pass Posse Comatitus and tell the US Army: "We want that property back minus the terrorists".

Wow. You really are an idiot. You really don't realize the passe comitatus act was passed to prevent the army from being used for domestic law enforcement.....

No, actually, your the idiot. The bill was passed into law to prevent the US Military from being used as law enforcement in most circumstances. However, if the President signs a specific document, federal armies can be mobilized and used to handle any number of threats. For example, if the government had intel on a major terrorist plotting to blow up a city, the President could order special forces to act via this document.

Therefore, what I stated was correct and you really should re-read the act....

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

quote:

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement [which is what phydeaux was referencing].[1]

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

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

quote:

10 U.S.C. § 375.

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

quote:

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. 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, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. 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.[7]

I don't see anything from the information ive copied above, or on the whole page, that allows the government to do what you are suggesting, nor in fact even, respond to a terrorist threat--unless it involves nuclear material:

quote:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon

or put another way, how about you just actually post the relevant sections of the act that support your contention in general, and more importantly, to this case specifically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
At worst they decided to become stupid and try for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX moment. In which case the US Government should just pass Posse Comatitus and tell the US Army: "We want that property back minus the terrorists".

Wow. You really are an idiot. You really don't realize the passe comitatus act was passed to prevent the army from being used for domestic law enforcement.....

No, actually, your the idiot. The bill was passed into law to prevent the US Military from being used as law enforcement in most circumstances. However, if the President signs a specific document, federal armies can be mobilized and used to handle any number of threats. For example, if the government had intel on a major terrorist plotting to blow up a city, the President could order special forces to act via this document.

Therefore, what I stated was correct and you really should re-read the act....

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

quote:

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement [which is what phydeaux was referencing].[1]

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

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

quote:

10 U.S.C. § 375.

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

quote:

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. 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, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. 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.[7]

I don't see anything from the information ive copied above, or on the whole page, that allows the government to do what you are suggesting, nor in fact even, respond to a terrorist threat--unless it involves nuclear material:

quote:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon

or put another way, how about you just actually post the relevant sections of the act that support your contention in general, and more importantly, to this case specifically?

If the government REALLY wanted to use the US Military to handle policing actions, they could do it. The nice way of dealing with it is simply an executive order to suspend Posse Comitatus. The President would have to follow things by 'the book' given the nature of conservatives in our nation. Its 'OK' if Bush put down Muslim Terrorists threatening Americans, but if Obama puts down militia terrorists, its just 'wrong' to conservatives. Conservatives like you, hold a double standard....

The US Military has been used in many spots. I'm sure we might have used special forces, dressed as SWAT, to take down a very threatening set of individuals in the past.

All I see at this building in Oregon is a pack of domestic terrorists that should feel the wrath of the US Military! So we can all see what happens when we have conservative gun nuts toting assault rifles and shotguns handle a company of M-1 Abrams, a wing of F-22s, and a few special force groups coming at them. Those Americans in that area should be defended from tyrannical and evil groups just like anyone else by our military!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
At worst they decided to become stupid and try for another Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX moment. In which case the US Government should just pass Posse Comatitus and tell the US Army: "We want that property back minus the terrorists".

Wow. You really are an idiot. You really don't realize the passe comitatus act was passed to prevent the army from being used for domestic law enforcement.....

No, actually, your the idiot. The bill was passed into law to prevent the US Military from being used as law enforcement in most circumstances. However, if the President signs a specific document, federal armies can be mobilized and used to handle any number of threats. For example, if the government had intel on a major terrorist plotting to blow up a city, the President could order special forces to act via this document.

Therefore, what I stated was correct and you really should re-read the act....

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

quote:

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement [which is what phydeaux was referencing].[1]

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

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

quote:

10 U.S.C. § 375.

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

quote:

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. 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, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. 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.[7]

I don't see anything from the information ive copied above, or on the whole page, that allows the government to do what you are suggesting, nor in fact even, respond to a terrorist threat--unless it involves nuclear material:

quote:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon

or put another way, how about you just actually post the relevant sections of the act that support your contention in general, and more importantly, to this case specifically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

Two things from the article linked in the OP that stood out to me:

There was a peaceful protest of both local citizens and militia members earlier that day, and it was after that protest that the occupation occurred. But leaders of some of the militia groups that traveled to the protest, including ones who helped organize it, said they knew nothing of plans for the occupation and have publicly denounced it, both in a statement to the press and in a statement posted on Facebook. The ones involved in this are only a handful of 'hard-core' militia members led by Ammon Bundy. Bundy and his followers are not from Oregon and have no ties to the area.

The men whose prosecutions were being protested, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, have stated through their attorneys that they have no intention of disobeying orders to report for prison. The Bundy's have chosen to take the cause on as their own, after the Hammond family and local ranchers rejected Bundy's attempts to recruit them.

If all of this is accurate, this is an outsider group coming in and taking up this cause, in a manner that those actually involved have rejected.


You seem to have pretty nailed it. Well said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lucy, I gave two historic examples of armed takeover by leftists.

I also pointed out that two environmental groups have used violence and weapons to make their points, which if you would have bothered to check have happened IN THIS FUCKING CENTURY.

This includes but is not limited to, armed invasion of research labs to free animals, fire bombing housing projects that have destroyed habitat, spiking trees scheduled to be harvested with metal which when hit with a chainsaw would cause serious injury with a real possibility of death.

I had hoped that you were at least intelligent enough to do a little research on your part just to see how overwhelmingly stupid your question actually was.

The tactic I used, as I understand it, is called diplomacy, and done so in a way that would allow you the chance to retract or reword the question without someone making you out to be foolish, ill informed and out of touch with the real world of left leaning protests.

It was the most respectful way I could think of to do so.

Now I do apologize for giving your intellect more credit than it deserves.

Do you have to favor armed occupation to see that there is something wrong with another judge changing the sentence for these men after they have served the original sentence and have COMMITED NO OFFENSES SINCE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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

there is the posse comitatus act. in total 18 USC 1385.


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 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.

insurrection act 10 USC 332.

nothing to discuss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...

Why don't you go back and support some of your ad homem attacks with actual quotes.

Oh, I know. Because making ad hominen attacks is actually what you want to do.