Regular Army troops patrolled Samson, AL

XxFuRy2Xx

XxFuRy2Xx

CAGiversary!
Feedback
18 (100%)
In response to inquiries about photos that seemed to record the presence of regular Army troops on the streets of Samson, Alabama, the U.S. Army has released a statement acknowledging that military police were in fact dispatched to the city after the mass murder there, and that an inquiry into the use of those troops is under way.


On the Tenth of March, after a report of the apparent mass murder in Samson, 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, along with the Fort Rucker Provost Martial, were sent to the city of Samson.


The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed, is the subject of an ongoing commander's inquiry, directed by the commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, General Martin Dempsey.


In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also consider whether law, regulation and policy were followed. Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.


In the aftermath of this horrific crime spree, the military community of Fort Rucker joins the greater Alabama Wiregrass community in its grief and concern for the victims and their families.


Use of military personnel in a law-enforcement role is a controversial practice, and one that may run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act. While the restrictions of that law have been eroded over the years, military personnel cannot freely be used in a civilian policing role outside of certain exceptions carved out of the Posse Comitatus Act.


The Army statement, from Colonel Michael Negard of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) headquartered at Fort Monroe, Virgina, while obviously carefully worded, recognizes concerns about the legality of the use of troops in Samson, as well as the political tempest it has already stirred up.


The Posse Comitatus Act dates to the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when formerly rebellious regions of the country chafed under military occupation, which imposed direct, armed rule by the federal government. Since the passage of the original law, exceptions have been made for drug law enforcement, natural disasters, insurrections and situations when local governments are unable to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights, but purely civilian law enforcement remains off-limits.
Click to expand...
Link. Not cool Army, not cool.
 
Just a warning - talking about stuff like this makes you one of those Ron Paul/Glenn Beck kooky paranoids...

The fact that military law enforcement inside our borders was made a illegal by President Hayes right after the Civil War is, according to the media and the sitting congress, just splitting hairs.
 
Yep. Read about this on the crazy forum when it happened.

Somebody is going to get nailed for this. The government hasn't figured out who will be the patsy yet.

It's not like they can just blame the black guy, a book restocker or a gunless boarder.
 
I'm surprised the soldiers themselves agreed. My brother was an MP and spoke very strongly about the conditions required for him to step off the base. This is one of those cases where you have to disobey a direct order as the soldier. I wonder if that happened.

And the officer that gave the order needs to be stomped out of service immediately.
 
The sad thing is that people don't "get" why it's such a big deal. As a future officer hopeful(military that is),I too hope the CO gets some punishment. If it wasn't the CO's DIRECT order, he still needs to be fully aware of what his ranking subordinates are doing. No Captain should be able to order something like that.
 
Reality's Fringe;5664041 said:
The sad thing is that people don't "get" why it's such a big deal. As a future officer hopeful(military that is),I too hope the CO gets some punishment. If it wasn't the CO's DIRECT order, he still needs to be fully aware of what his ranking subordinates are doing. No Captain should be able to order something like that.
Click to expand...

I'll pretend I don't know why having military patrolling inside the United States. Can you tell me why?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just a warning - talking about stuff like this makes you one of those Ron Paul/Glenn Beck kooky paranoids..[/QUOTE]
fabricating any relation between this and the Big Government conspiacy theorists is pretty wild...

no, unlike the New World Order crackpot issues this is actually something worth attention
 
[quote name='Koggit']fabricating any relation between this and the Big Government conspiacy theorists is pretty wild...

no, unlike the New World Order crackpot issues this is actually something worth attention[/QUOTE]

And the fact that all of it is ultimately related and connected in very traceable ways is worth even more attention.

BTW, I have never said the words "new world order", nor even talked about it -- but many recent world leaders, including are own, have. Ultimately "new world order" is a relative phrase though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD3BqK-9ZiU
Slide to 2:40


To me, "new world order" is simply globalization. But given the past three months, I'm sure that's not happening. ;)
 
I brought this up to a couple of friends the other day, to my surprise and terror they thought it was ok. At first i thought they misunderstood me, that they thought they were national guard troops, but no, they understood perfectly.

I didn't even ask them if they wanted tanks rolling down broadway too, i was just too surprised by their opinions.
 
I wouldn't be too surprised Jake. The military consistently ranks as among the most trusted federal entities. In reality, the domestic military record over the course of our history is truly outstanding. I think people are right to inherently trust our servicemen and women, precisely because there is a furor over items as ultimately trivial as this.
 
Have you ever seen images of tanks or troops on the streets of some formerly soviet states? It isn't as much the individuals i fear, it's the people ordering them around. I don't' want armed groups of soldiers walking down my street for my "protection."

Hell, that's not unlike paying the mob to "protect" you.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I wouldn't be too surprised Jake. The military consistently ranks as among the most trusted federal entities. In reality, the domestic military record over the course of our history is truly outstanding. I think people are right to inherently trust our servicemen and women, precisely because there is a furor over items as ultimately trivial as this.[/QUOTE]

Because unconditional trust doesn't make it easier for someone to get away with illegal acts or anything.
 
It's only martial law if the military had complete control of the city and all services. As far as I can tell, they only provided extra security.

Let's remember that there was a mass murder. If the troops can help curb any more violence, then they did their job.

I'm sure none of you had a problem with soldiers in the streets of Manhattan after 9/11 but I guess we should uphold the exact letter of the law when it comes to mass murder and mayhem.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It's only martial law if the military had complete control of the city and all services. As far as I can tell, they only provided extra security.

Let's remember that there was a mass murder. If the troops can help curb any more violence, then they did their job.

I'm sure none of you had a problem with soldiers in the streets of Manhattan after 9/11 but I guess we should uphold the exact letter of the law when it comes to mass murder and mayhem.[/quote]

Was it regular military or National Guard?

Was there a state of emergency declared?
 
It was regular military but they didn't once take over the town. The fact that the military was patrolling doesn't make the military and the government out to take over a small town in Alabama. It would be more suspicious if they had stayed for months just in case.

As for Manhattan, there were troops (active duty Army) around far longer than the state of emergency. There was even an article in the Daily News about the change of guard from the Army to the National Guard. No one seemed to understand why this was happening in late 2004 instead of late 2001/early 2002. I'm trying to dig up the article.
 
Those guys are NYPD. I'm talking US Army troops they used in Times Square, Grand Central, etc.

This all comes down to the fact that we had soldiers at Ft Rucker that could help bring order to a small town that just suffered through a massacre. Not once did the military invoke martial law. Not once did they trample on anyone's civil liberties. Not once did they cause commerce in town to grind to a halt.

It was a mistake and the people responsible will probably be court martialed but let's not pretend that this is some sort of nefarious plot by the US Military to bring martial law to American streets.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Army_investigating_unwarranted_troop_deployment_in_0318.html

This is a much better article. It states that Samson has only five people in the police department. Five people going against a ex-officer that already killed 11 people. Maybe we should've just sat around.
 
Yeah it was the NYPD transitioning into a Militia for purposes of scaring the general public. Borderline legality. It's on the edge of privacy invasion.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" -Benny F.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top