DRZinn
Member
No, no, and no. Sorry, try again.
The "Other Condition" for Martial Law
- Thread starter Thin Black Line
- Start date
- Status
The law amends the Insurrection Act to deal with events and problems that have occurred recently, so shouldn't the underlying act be "the biggest steal" notwithstanding the fact that our republic survived its passage and has thrived for years with it in place?
A. Patriot
Member
We can thank Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin both of the sorry state of Louisiana for this legislation. People died because of their incompetence.
Now, in the future, the president will not have to wait until one of these clowns "invites" in federal troops in to respond to a disaster.
Now, in the future, the president will not have to wait until one of these clowns "invites" in federal troops in to respond to a disaster.
Well ya see, the Coast Guard doesn't fall under the DOD. They used to be under DOT control, and are now part of Homeland Security.
So they're technically not a military branch.(Though Cutters are in the Persian Gulf I know so don't flame me Coasties.) So yes, posse comitatus has nothing to do with the Coast Guard. Though it was approved by the Navy, the only instances I can readily think of where Naval reservists fall under Coastie command are at HDCU's. As to the Marine Corps(Happy early birthday.) it aint gonna happen.silliman89
Member
Gee, that's persuasive. Care to be more specific.
I mean just off the top of my head, lets look at all the naval and marine forces that were used in NO for Katrina relief ops.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78092,00.html
Who was in charge? A Coast Guard Admiral.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0905/092305nj1.htm
As I said, this bypasses any posse comitatus complications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it isn't true.
silliman89
Member
The Harbor Defense Command Units may be the only commands where naval personnel are permanently under Coastie command, I'm really not sure. As I recall it happened repeatedly in refugee and anti-drug ops in the Caribbean, but only for an hour or so at a pop.
A naval unit, like an OHP would stop a suspicious ship or boat, maybe on a tip. They'd send over a Coast Guard officer with a couple of master at arms in support to look around. If the case ever went to trial, it was a Coast Guard operation.
That's all word of mouth sea stories from 10 - 12 years ago though. I tried to find a reference on yahoo and couldn't. So take that with a grain of salt if you like.
There were marines and naval personnel under the command of a coast guard Vice Admiral in NO last year though.
DRZinn
Member
RE:
http://www.jcs.mil/about_cjs.html
So much for that part.
The President already has broad powers to deploy National Guard troops (that's the Army) and Marines (that's the Marine Corps) to suppress rebellion and provide disaster relief. The fact that you saw a Coast Guard officer in charge of some Marines doing disaster relief means nothing.
vmfrantz
Member
I was in the Marines and worked with the coast gaurd. But they never were in control of us. We had our orders and worked with them at times. They will never let that fly. The national security act defines the Marines mission. As I'm sure it does for each military branch.
Besides that there will be parts of each branch of service that disobey the order to take out civilian over the 2a. And if there are enough pockets of resistance from citizens the military would be brought to its knees. And I would bet that the citizens would get help from outsiders.
Besides that there will be parts of each branch of service that disobey the order to take out civilian over the 2a. And if there are enough pockets of resistance from citizens the military would be brought to its knees. And I would bet that the citizens would get help from outsiders.
silliman89
Member
Yes, they have their own seat on the joint chiefs of staff (now). What they don't have is their own service secretary. They are part of the department of the navy and fall under the secretary of the navy.
They also don't have their own academy. Midshipmen from Annapolis are given the choice upon graduation of becoming naval officers or marine officers. Again, that's because they're both the department of the navy.
I'm glad you agree with me then. That's what I said in my original post.
Remember that we're only discussing this as a way of showing that the new law in the beginning of this thread doesn't really change much of anything. It's just political posturing by the politicians in Congress so they can say, "Look, I did something to prevent another screw-up like Katrina."
It does legally.
DRZinn
Member
The Department of the Navy is not the Navy.
If it's illegal for the Marines to do it, putting a Coast Guard officer in charge wouldn't change that. And they wouldn't need that "trick" anyway, since it's already legal.
silliman89
Member
I wasn't suggesting that the marines would have TAD orders cut assigning them to Coast Guard units. If your unit were assigned a joint op with a Coast Guard officer in your chain of command then legally you're supporting the Coast Guard.
The actual "commands" may be along the lines of, "So what do you Marines think. ... Uh Huh. Good. Do that then."
silliman89
Member
I think we may be wasting our time with this one. Just to clarify, I never said the marines were the navy, I said they were owned by the navy. That was a bit of hyperbole. The fact of the matter is that the US Navy and the US Marine Corp. are both part of the Department of the Navy. Every Marine has the Sec. Nav. in his chain of command.
I think it would change it. I think that there's legal precedent in terms of drug smuggling arrests where other members of the department of the navy were put under Coast Guard command. But I can't prove it, so whatever.
The military is authorized to participate in anti-drug operations (as they are supposed to have done at Waco due to a fake accusation that drugs were involved). Coasties ride along on these operations in order to carry out arrests, and because they have far greater authority to carry out searches than LEOs.
DRZinn
Member
That wasn't hyperbole, it was simply incorrect.
DKSuddeth
Member
The Marines are most definitely NOT 'owned' by the Navy. We are a department of the Navy, mainly for logistic purposes.
coyote_jr
member
Wow this thread gave me chills before it broke off into the who in the military owns who tangent. It is probably just me, but I find this to be kind of an exciting moment in our history and I wouldn't mind things coming to a breaking point. It's like Sean Connery said in Hunt for Red October, "A little revolution once in awhile is a good thing, don't you think?"
Thin Black Line
Member
Maybe it would be helpful to demonstrate that the Marines are their own
branch by point out that the Chairman of the JCS is a Marine.
Also, to tie in with this thread, the ARNG does not have a seat on the JCS.
I would say the Navy and Marines are well-representated in the military
power structure, especially given the fact that the Marines have the smallest
number of people. However, I think they are also the fastest logistically and
easiest legally for the POTUS to call out and deploy.
branch by point out that the Chairman of the JCS is a Marine.
Also, to tie in with this thread, the ARNG does not have a seat on the JCS.
I would say the Navy and Marines are well-representated in the military
power structure, especially given the fact that the Marines have the smallest
number of people. However, I think they are also the fastest logistically and
easiest legally for the POTUS to call out and deploy.
That's a hopeful sentiment - were that it was true.ManedWolf said:
I and others, I'm sure, would be interested in knowing exactly what would prompt one to believe that the gun owning population would rise up enmass and resist?
coyote_jr
member
I for one won't really rise up or resist if it comes to that. However I will treat all no knock entries with extreme prejudice, regardless of uniform.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Using NOLA isn't a very solid example. For three reasons.
#1. Most gunowners had already left the city, especially the ones most likely to fight. Why? Most people don't want to die in a Hurricane. And a rifle does little to stop one.
#2. For all that was said about the confiscations, they were both limited to NOLA itself, and enforced by a relative few.
#3. As has been said before, few knew about the confiscations until after the situation had been going on, and most of the weapons that were to be seized had been. The serious gun owners now are on notice. And it will not be easy for a confiscation to occur after this now.
Oh, and by the way, the NG was also told to shoot looters on sight and few incidents of that type occured because the commander decided to be alot more selective about that order than he was supposed to. I'm not saying that all 90 million of us would take up arms, and march on the White House, what I am saying is this.
Look at most armed conflicts in the past 200 years. Only a few fight the government initially. But in order to fight that handfull the government cracks down on everyone. People are killed who are "collateral" and many are left with nothing to lose. As things get worse, the government cracks down harder, and only brings more people onto the side of the rebels. This model is playing out in Iraq right now.
Also keep in mind, when the Revolution happened only about 15-20% of the country was actually fighting the crown, the rest were either sideliners, or were against the Revolution. I suspect similar percentages if a confiscation were to occur.
#1. Most gunowners had already left the city, especially the ones most likely to fight. Why? Most people don't want to die in a Hurricane. And a rifle does little to stop one.
#2. For all that was said about the confiscations, they were both limited to NOLA itself, and enforced by a relative few.
#3. As has been said before, few knew about the confiscations until after the situation had been going on, and most of the weapons that were to be seized had been. The serious gun owners now are on notice. And it will not be easy for a confiscation to occur after this now.
Oh, and by the way, the NG was also told to shoot looters on sight and few incidents of that type occured because the commander decided to be alot more selective about that order than he was supposed to. I'm not saying that all 90 million of us would take up arms, and march on the White House, what I am saying is this.
Look at most armed conflicts in the past 200 years. Only a few fight the government initially. But in order to fight that handfull the government cracks down on everyone. People are killed who are "collateral" and many are left with nothing to lose. As things get worse, the government cracks down harder, and only brings more people onto the side of the rebels. This model is playing out in Iraq right now.
Also keep in mind, when the Revolution happened only about 15-20% of the country was actually fighting the crown, the rest were either sideliners, or were against the Revolution. I suspect similar percentages if a confiscation were to occur.
- Status
