Posse Comitatus Anyone?
Wendall Ritter
I've been studying law for a while, as well as the founding documents
in our country. I'm proudly an American, and strive to teach others
about the true nature of patriotism in this country.
I'm just wondering if you're all familiar with the term "Pose
Comitatus", if you understand it, and if you support it.
There is a growing concern in our country about the acts and
aggressions of our government. Understand that this is a non-partisan
post, I'm not an "anti-Bush" person. I have many problems with what's
occured in our government over the past 100 years, and it took many
years outside of the "nothing" they teach us in school for me to
realize these things. I've had as much problem with Bush as I have
with any other president.
I'm hoping that our military has an understanding of the above Act and
other matters pertaining to the often concerning actions our govt has
and is making. We are living in very apprehensive times. It's
vitally important that our military has as deep an understanding of
politics and law as possible, considering that they have virtually no
choice in so many matters when it comes to executing orders.
Comments?
Thanks.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I've been studying law for a while, as well as the founding documents
>in our country. I'm proudly an American, and strive to teach others
>about the true nature of patriotism in this country.
>
>I'm just wondering if you're all familiar with the term "Pose
>Comitatus", if you understand it, and if you support it.
Since what you are talking about is a Federal Law - our 'support' is
irrelevant, either we obey the law or we will be in violation of the
law.
And as for understanding this law - if we have any questions we have
JAG lawyers who can give us expert advice.
---
"What Sept. 11 did was remind us that there are
times when we must fight for our country, that,
indeed, there are things - our liberty, our
democracy, our belief in human rights and human
dignity - worth fighting for."
Newsday.com editorial - 27 May 2002
Wendall Ritter
> On 15 Jun 2003 19:42:03 -0700, tre...@earthling.net (Wendall Ritter)
> wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >I've been studying law for a while, as well as the founding documents
> >in our country. I'm proudly an American, and strive to teach others
> >about the true nature of patriotism in this country.
> >
> >I'm just wondering if you're all familiar with the term "Pose
> >Comitatus", if you understand it, and if you support it.
>
> Since what you are talking about is a Federal Law - our 'support' is
> irrelevant, either we obey the law or we will be in violation of the
> law.
>
> And as for understanding this law - if we have any questions we have
> JAG lawyers who can give us expert advice.
Yikes!
It's not irrelevant at all...if you choose to obey or not is extremely
significant.
The idea that your lawyers are interpreting is a little disconcerting,
as I don't know how they'd compare to other lawyers on the same
question. Lawyers in general are a criminal lot.
> "What Sept. 11 did was remind us that there are
> times when we must fight for our country, that,
> indeed, there are things - our liberty, our
> democracy, our belief in human rights and human
> dignity - worth fighting for."
> Newsday.com editorial - 27 May 2002
Of course they're worth fighting for...but is this sig file meant to
insinuate that the funding and subsequent invasion of other countries
while leaving our borders open is the excuse for international
military action?
Of course you can see that I'm against it. But only because far too
many reasons exist and outweigh as to why it shouldn't be happening.
I was disappointed that I only received one response to this in a day.
It's absolutely VITAL that our armed forces come to understand how
many unanswered questions remain about how our govt is handling it's
country, and it's involvment overseas. Our own Constitution describes
exactly how and when military action is warranted, and it only
pertains to the invasion of our shores. And as it stands, our govt
currently has our shores *open* to "covert" invasion...seemingly by
design!
Posse Comitatus is being effectively overcome, and has been for many
years. If our military doesn't begin to question, if they blindly
follow, our country is sure to end up in the sewer system
quickly...too much trust in ANY govt is a very scary thing. Americans
unwilling to question is even worse.
Yeff
> I was disappointed that I only received one response to this in a day.
> It's absolutely VITAL that our armed forces come to understand how
> many unanswered questions remain about how our govt is handling it's
> country, and it's involvment overseas.
If one examines postcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either
reject cultural libertarianism or conclude that reality serves to reinforce
class divisions, given that sexuality is equal to reality. But the subject
is interpolated into a material Marxism that includes consciousness as a
paradox.
Derrida uses the term 'cultural libertarianism' to denote not narrative as
such, but prenarrative. It could be said that in Jackie Brown, Tarantino
deconstructs Marxism; in Pulp Fiction, although, he examines subcapitalist
dematerialism.
If Sontagist camp holds, we have to choose between deconstructivist
precapitalist theory and Baudrillardist hyperreality. However, the subject
is contextualised into a Marxism that includes sexuality as a reality.
-Jeff B. (happy to give you a second response)
yeff at erols dot com
Tom Huxton
"Yeff" <zoo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:15ek0fiiej045.dlg@lemming_militia.com...
Yeff, spend a few dollars more for your liquor, that clear stuff is rotting your reason.
That jingoistic lingualism with all its pretext and presumptive insubstantuality only serves to bemuse
the rational audience and confuse the rest.
Baudrillardism!!!!!!------Wise up, Yeff. If you follow that reasoning, you will be putting on your
clothes before going to bed, and running around town in your pajamas.
Baudrillardism...........Bwahhhahahahahahahaha
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In a sense,
the subject is contextualised into a structural discourse that includes language as a paradox. Several
narratives concerning the common ground between narrativity and society may be revealed.
Thus, the subject is interpolated into a socialist realism that includes culture as a reality. Finnis[1]
states that we have to choose between structural discourse and subcapitalist theory.
In a sense, any number of narratives concerning textual Marxism exist. The subject is contextualised into
a structural discourse that includes truth as a paradox.
"Reality is intrinsically meaningless," says Marx. But Lyotard uses the term 'Baudrillardist simulation'
to denote not theory, but posttheory. The subject is interpolated into a structural discourse that
includes art as a totality.
If one examines socialist realism, one is faced with a choice: either accept structural discourse or
conclude that language is part of the paradigm of truth. Thus, the characteristic theme of Pickett's[2]
model of socialist realism is a precapitalist reality. Marx promotes the use of dialectic construction to
challenge sexism.
In a sense, the absurdity, and therefore the fatal flaw, of socialist realism intrinsic to Rushdie's The
Ground Beneath Her Feet is also evident in Satanic Verses, although in a more self-sufficient sense. The
premise of structural discourse holds that the State is capable of intention, but only if language is
equal to culture; if that is not the case, class has intrinsic meaning.
Thus, if socialist realism holds, we have to choose between the neomaterialist paradigm of narrative and
textual poststructural theory. Lyotard uses the term 'textual Marxism' to denote not, in fact, narrative,
but subnarrative. But many theories concerning the absurdity, and some would say the stasis, of textual
sexual identity may be discovered. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is a mythopoetical paradox.
In a sense, a number of situationisms concerning structural discourse exist. The subject is
contextualised into a socialist realism that includes art as a reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Finnis, E. ed. (1986) Structural discourse and socialist realism. Panic Button Books
2. Pickett, T. W. (1970) The Collapse of Society: Socialist realism in the works of Gaiman. Schlangekraft
Thomas
Yeff
> Yeff, spend a few dollars more for your liquor, that clear stuff is rotting
> your reason. That jingoistic lingualism with all its pretext and
> presumptive insubstantuality only serves to bemuse the rational audience
> and confuse the rest.
You are wise beyond your years, Tom Huxton. Methinks you're a modern
thinker, and I'll post that 'til the end of time. <g>
> Baudrillardism!!!!!!------Wise up, Yeff. If you follow that reasoning, you
> will be putting on your clothes before going to bed, and running around
> town in your pajamas. Baudrillardism...........Bwahhhahahahahahahaha
You've sent me to my dictionary. Very good! Still, the main theme of the
works of Tarantino is the difference between class and art. Hubbard[1]
holds that we have to choose between the neosemiotic paradigm of reality
and capitalist libertarianism. In a sense, an abundance of structuralisms
concerning the role of the observer as reader exist.
If one examines Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either accept
precultural discourse or conclude that society, perhaps ironically, has
intrinsic meaning. If Sontagist camp holds, the works of Tarantino are
reminiscent of Lynch. But many theories concerning Marxism may be found.
"Language is meaningless," says Lacan. The creation/destruction distinction
intrinsic to Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs emerges again in Four Rooms.
However, McElwaine[2] implies that we have to choose between Sontagist camp
and textual dematerialism.
If one examines Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either reject
subcapitalist narrative or conclude that sexuality is fundamentally dead. A
number of desituationisms concerning not theory, but neotheory exist. But
in Satyricon, Fellini reiterates Sontagist camp; in Amarcord he
deconstructs the cultural paradigm of consensus.
In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the distinction between
feminine and masculine. Derrida uses the term 'Sontagist camp' to denote
the role of the poet as writer. It could be said that if cultural
libertarianism holds, the works of Fellini are postmodern.
If one examines preconstructivist narrative, one is faced with a choice:
either accept Sontagist camp or conclude that the law is capable of
significance. Marx suggests the use of Marxism to deconstruct colonialist
perceptions of sexual identity. However, Lacan uses the term 'cultural
libertarianism' to denote the failure of textual class.
Sontagist camp states that the purpose of the observer is deconstruction,
given that the premise of Marxism is invalid. Thus, Bailey[3] holds that we
have to choose between cultural libertarianism and prematerial discourse.
Sartre uses the term 'Marxism' to denote the bridge between sexual identity
and class. In a sense, the paradigm, and thus the meaninglessness, of
cultural libertarianism depicted in Fellini's Satyricon is also evident in
Amarcord, although in a more cultural sense. An abundance of theories
concerning postcapitalist textual theory may be revealed. But Lacan
promotes the use of cultural libertarianism to modify and analyse society.
If Marxism holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and the
subdialectic paradigm of discourse. Thus, Marx uses the term 'Marxism' to
denote the genre of patriarchial language.
McElwaine[4] implies that the works of Fellini are modernistic. In a sense,
Bataille suggests the use of cultural libertarianism to attack capitalism.
Any number of theories concerning the difference between sexual identity
and narrativity exist. But Foucault promotes the use of Marxism to read
class.
Cultural libertarianism holds that society has objective value. Therefore,
Marx uses the term 'Sartreist absurdity' to denote not discourse, as
Sontagist camp suggests, but neodiscourse.
The subject is interpolated into a Marxism that includes truth as a whole.
However, the premise of capitalist objectivism suggests that the
significance of the writer is social comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hubbard, M. Z. Q. (1989) Marxism and Sontagist camp. University of
Illinois Press
2. McElwaine, S. ed. (1974) Deconstructing Debord: Marxism in the works of
Fellini. O'Reilly & Associates
3. Bailey, K. Y. H. (1997) Sontagist camp and Marxism. Schlangekraft
4. McElwaine, W. ed. (1980) The Absurdity of Society: Marxism and Sontagist
camp. O'Reilly & Associates
-----
-Jeff B. (laughing his ass off)
Tom Huxton
"Yeff" <zoo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:rulat0b1v11n.dlg@lemming_militia.com...
All that fluffery is fine for impressing the freshman bimbos down at the Campus Tavern (do you have a
cute or unusual beard, Yeff?), but the math majors will hand you your head in a handbasket with a few
Venn Diagrams and symbolic logic tables faster than you can spout your spew.
I think you're just trying to be slick; sliding away with imponderable nonsense and canned sociological
drivel. (20 years out of style and all your bibliographical references studied under Angela Davis at
UCLA)
No one (save myself) noticed that you drifted WAYYYYYY of topic on your first response, and you never
did address Wendall's original question. The fact that he was vague and tentative in his posing of
that question (Comments?) is the only thing saving your scrawny butt from the virtual bit-bucket.
(ploink file)
Thomas
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>It's not irrelevant at all...if you choose to obey or not is extremely
>significant.
I agree that it is extremely significant. If I commit a criminal act
then I can face criminal penalties.
There are scores of laws that I must obey in the military - Posse
Comitatus is just one of many.
>
>The idea that your lawyers are interpreting is a little disconcerting,
>as I don't know how they'd compare to other lawyers on the same
>question. Lawyers in general are a criminal lot.
So you are saying that JAG lawyers are criminals?
Oh - now I get it! I should only listen to _your_ political opinions,
right?
>Of course they're worth fighting for...but is this sig file meant to
>insinuate that the funding and subsequent invasion of other countries
>while leaving our borders open is the excuse for international
>military action?
>
>Of course you can see that I'm against it. But only because far too
>many reasons exist and outweigh as to why it shouldn't be happening.
This is nothing more that your political opinion. As such, I am
simply not interested.
>
>I was disappointed that I only received one response to this in a day.
Then maybe you should go to a news group where people are interested
in discussing your political opinions?
> It's absolutely VITAL that our armed forces come to understand how
>many unanswered questions remain about how our govt is handling it's
>country, and it's involvment overseas. Our own Constitution describes
>exactly how and when military action is warranted, and it only
>pertains to the invasion of our shores. And as it stands, our govt
>currently has our shores *open* to "covert" invasion...seemingly by
>design!
Please cite the relevant passages in the US COnstitution where it
"describes exactly how and when military action is warranted."
>
>Posse Comitatus is being effectively overcome, and has been for many
>years. If our military doesn't begin to question, if they blindly
>follow, our country is sure to end up in the sewer system
>quickly...too much trust in ANY govt is a very scary thing. Americans
>unwilling to question is even worse.
Posse Comitatus is a law passed by Congress. As such, Congress is
free to change, or repeal the law as they see fit. And as soldiers
our duty is to obey the representatives of the people.
---
Wendall Ritter
> On 16 Jun 2003 20:55:29 -0700, Wendall Ritter wrote:
>
> > I was disappointed that I only received one response to this in a day.
> > It's absolutely VITAL that our armed forces come to understand how
> > many unanswered questions remain about how our govt is handling it's
> > country, and it's involvment overseas.
>
> If one examines postcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either
> reject cultural libertarianism or conclude that reality serves to reinforce
> class divisions, given that sexuality is equal to reality. But the subject
> is interpolated into a material Marxism that includes consciousness as a
> paradox.
(SNIP!)
Could you and Tom waste MORE time and bandwidth?
Posse Comitatus people. Not an exercise in theoretical reality constructs.
Yeff
> Could you and Tom waste MORE time and bandwidth?
If you insist.
> Posse Comitatus people. Not an exercise in theoretical reality constructs.
Ah, but Posse Comitatus is interpolated into a subcapitalist libertarianism
that includes truth as a reality. Thus, Prinn[1] states that we have to
choose between realism and pretextual conceptual theory.
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
1. Prinn, T. W. S. ed. (1990) Reading Marx: Realism and postcapitalist
textual theory. University of North Carolina Press
Tom Huxton
"Wendall Ritter" <tre...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:aecb0599.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Could you and Tom waste MORE time and bandwidth?
>
> Posse Comitatus people. Not an exercise in theoretical reality constructs.
It is not really a "waste", Wendall. We both have high speed cable, so it is only a waste if we DON'T
post continuously. (from our point of view.) We are actually lowering our cost per bit by posting as
many lengthy posts as possible. Yeff is a "Scrooge" and I'm highly conscious of the efficiency
coefficient. (got a new toolie from ZDNET that continuously calculates my CPB in real-time. currently
$.00000082 and falling fast)
We are narrowing down to your question. We'll have a decent rant or flame for you by next Monday. You
could help us out by expanding your own rant or restating or expanding your original position.
~Nins~
"Wendall Ritter" <tre...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:aecb0599.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> I've been studying law for a while, as well as the founding documents
> in our country. I'm proudly an American, and strive to teach others
> about the true nature of patriotism in this country.
>
> I'm just wondering if you're all familiar with the term "Pose
> Comitatus", if you understand it, and if you support it.
Also, for those who read this thread and might not know about the topic:
<Q> 18 USC 1385: 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. </Q> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html
<Q>Posse Comitatus Act: A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of
Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly
authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for
civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81
additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible
military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the
Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States.
Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance
(e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid,
surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD
personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For
example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy
vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug
smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have
been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement. </Q>
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html
<snip>
~Nins~
news:aecb0599.03061...@posting.google.com...
message news:<cbiqev4d2lsktk95p...@4ax.com>...
>
> > Since what you are talking about is a Federal Law - our 'support' is
> > irrelevant, either we obey the law or we will be in violation of the
> > law.
> >
> > And as for understanding this law - if we have any questions we have
> > JAG lawyers who can give us expert advice.
>
> Yikes!
>
> It's not irrelevant at all...if you choose to obey or not is extremely
> significant.
He was referring to whether or not 'support' is a factor in it, about
relevancy. Perhaps you are combining acceptance and adherence in with the
concept of support? Whether or not there is support for this or that law is
irrelevant. It is law and to violate such would be to subject oneself to
penalties as defined under that law. There may be some traffic laws you do
not support, but do you strive to abide by them? If you don't, what
happens? IF you are saying that a person should not abide by a law they do
not support, then aren't you more or less advocating anarchism?
> country, and it's involvment overseas. Our own Constitution describes
> exactly how and when military action is warranted, and it only
> pertains to the invasion of our shores. And as it stands, our govt
> currently has our shores *open* to "covert" invasion...seemingly by
> design!
What constitutes an 'invasion'? Should we be only reactive instead of
proactive? Wait until we see the smoking gun upon our shores (when we
could've done something about it on the shores of the ones who might do the
invasion)? How is that in the best interest of the USA and its people?
In Sec. 8 of Art. 1 does it not state that one of the powers to Congress has
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offences against the Law of Nations."? What would the "Law of Nations" be
today? What would constitute a violation of the Law of Nations? Perhaps I
am unclear with the Constitution reference and this passage from Sec. 8,
maybe you could clarify it (ref. the link given below in entirety) for me
and provide an exact reference citation to your statement above? Thanks in
advance. One more thing: Is the Constitution a document that allows for
growth for evolvement? Is it a 'living' document? Was everything
outlined/stated specifically or 'exactly' as to how it should be or was it
worded more in a context with an amount of vagueness to allow for
interpretation and growth?
[Could I be any more confusing?...well yes I could be. ;-) ]
Are you saying that we should not be involved in foreign affairs,
particularly or at least not using our military, at all? Correct me if I'm
wrong. Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you are saying or
trying to say?
<Q>Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs,
acting through
a common agency--namely, the Comtinental Congress, composed of delegates
from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and
peace, raised an army,
created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. --Art.
I, Sec. 8, Clauses 11-14</Q>
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art1.html
> Posse Comitatus is being effectively overcome, and has been for many
> years. If our military doesn't begin to question, if they blindly
> follow, our country is sure to end up in the sewer system
> quickly...too much trust in ANY govt is a very scary thing. Americans
> unwilling to question is even worse.
Perhaps it is or should be more a matter of trust in an individual's vote
and how well the individual informs himself of this or that which he should
in order to be a competent voter? So, to not trust the government, the
officials the voters put in office, is not to trust one's own vote. Are you
saying we, the people, should not trust ourselves too much, not trust our
votes too much? So, where does or should the problem lie...with the law
itself...or the people involved...i.e., voter?
Interesting...
Joe Wilcox
military use to combat terrorism. The only thing is they did not limit his
use to just Afghanistan.
Posse Comitatus Act
Source: G-OPL
"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law
proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except
where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of
military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation.
Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying
permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement
agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling
into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive
and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft,
intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting
direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search,
seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments
(LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of
interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their
crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy
ship/aircraft involvement.
"Wendall Ritter" <tre...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:aecb0599.03061...@posting.google.com...
~Nins~
"Joe Wilcox" <wi...@coastalnow.net> wrote in message
news:bco7u...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I think The President did have the proper approval when congress said yes
to
> military use to combat terrorism. The only thing is they did not limit his
> use to just Afghanistan.
And the action against Iraq was authorized by Congress: H.J.RES.114
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm
<Q>Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the
President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons
who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in
order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the
United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region</Q>
Section 3 of the above link states: "(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is
authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to
be necessary and appropriate in order to - "
<snip>
BobMac
From what I've heard and read, it's no sillier than the PCA.
rm
David Casey
>> The idea that your lawyers are interpreting is a little
>> disconcerting, as I don't know how they'd compare to other lawyers on
>> the same question.
>
> IMHO, this newsgroup is *not* representative of the folks in the
> military.
The folks in this newsgroup are probably a lot more representative of the
military than many other places. You have soldiers of all ranks, all
MOS's, and all experiences here. Heck, we even have an Air Force troop
or two.
> Some in here have the position that they follow orders. Period. And if
> there is any question about an illegal order, the person that has the
> question must see someone like Colin, and they will be given the
> appropriate attitude adjustment.
Hmmm... interesting dig at Colin there. Unless you meant the idiot
giving the illegal order would be getting the attitude adjustment?
>> Posse Comitatus is being effectively overcome, and has been for many
>> years. If our military doesn't begin to question, if they blindly
>> follow, our country is sure to end up in the sewer system
>> quickly...too much trust in ANY govt is a very scary thing.
>
> The above is pretty close to a political statement, and as such, is
> off topic for this newsgroup.
The above appears to be an opinion. Something you stated earlier in this
post.
> But, right now, today, the Michigan National Guard is about to be
> called up to quell a 'riot' in Benton Harbor. Since the capabilities
> of the Guard are much the same as the regular army, the PC is a
> technicality. (IMHO)
I thought the PC was federal? The Michigan National Guard being called
up to help with a problem internal to a state means the governor is doing
the calling and *not* the federal government.
> Bringing the force of the military against citizens who are acting in
> a manner that is beyond the capability of local and state police
> forces is...
>
> a good thing?
Depends.
> or a bad thing?
Depends.
>> Americans unwilling to question is even worse.
>
> Federally funded perscription drugs. Enough said.
Good thing, it's off-topic. I mean, since we're pointing out the off-
topic stuff here.
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Daryl Hunt
"Igor Godenov" <izz...@hotmale.spam.com> wrote in message
news:BB17321E.1F78%izz...@hotmale.spam.com...
> in article 9ig2fvgd10jj9tun8...@4ax.com, Lee Parsons at
> friart...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/03 12:57 AM:
> >
> > Hardly. the Governor using the NG to quell disturbances is not the
> > President sending regular troops.
>
> What about if the guard has tanks, bradley's and strykers and the troops
> that go with them? How is that different than 'regular troops'?
The difference is the Boss.
>
> I probably have no idea of what the various guards have, but there have
been
> several discussions about the guard being combat based units, while the
> reserve is based on suport.
The reserves fall under the PCA while the Guard doesn't.
>
> So, if I am right, what is the difference between a guard tank and a
regular
> troop tank?
One is controlled by the State while the other is controlled by the Feds.
This may vary at times for the Guards but the equipment does not fall under
the PCA and neither does the Actives. To stir a hornets nest, Waco, TX,
some of that equipment was provided by the Federal Troops. They delived it,
trained the FBI on it and then sat on their hands. It's not the equipment
but the personnel that PCA is applied.
>
> >
> > You may not understand or wish to acknowledge the difference, but it
> > is there and significant and one of the few state's rights left.
>
> Does the state have the right to use combat military force on its
citizens?
> The PCA was built with this thought - it became *illegal.*
The Guard can be called up by the State Governor for many duties including
Riot Control and Police Support actions. The Reserves and the Regulars
cannot.
The reason behind the PCA is to prevent the President from naming himself as
King and having the means to make it happen. It dates back a ways but our
founding Fathers curtailed the Presidents powers to prevent a Monarch from
being created. Sort of like what the Colonies had before the Declaration of
Independance.
Daryl Hunt
> in article bcsg3g$835$1...@news.chatlink.com, Daryl Hunt at
> dh...@i70west.nospam.net wrote on 6/19/03 10:09 AM:
>
> >
> > "Igor Godenov" <izz...@hotmale.spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:BB17321E.1F78%izz...@hotmale.spam.com...
> >> in article 9ig2fvgd10jj9tun8...@4ax.com, Lee Parsons at
> >> friart...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/19/03 12:57 AM:
> >>>
> >>> Hardly. the Governor using the NG to quell disturbances is not the
> >>> President sending regular troops.
> >>
> >> What about if the guard has tanks, bradley's and strykers and the
troops
> >> that go with them? How is that different than 'regular troops'?
> >
> > The difference is the Boss.
>
where
> and when they are deployed to those 120 or so countries that the US has
> troops in?
They are federalized and therefore under the command of the PUTUS. Don't
federalize them and they are under the command of the various State
Governors.
>
> And, more to the point, to the civilians that are looking at the wrong end
> of the M-16, that isn't the issue. A lot of our laws are meant to limit
the
> gov, and protect individual rights. I see the PCA as in this category. So
> who is 'boss' is a not the issue.
There is a little writup in the Colorado National Guard Regs that states
that only those with reserve status can be called up by the Federals. The
ones that are not in reserve status or not eligible to be drafted (many
guards fall into this category) can only be called up with the Governors
permission. There are many guards that are under the reserve status that
can be called up without the Governors approval. This has never been tested
in court since not a single Colorado Governor has opted to use it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I probably have no idea of what the various guards have, but there have
> > been
> >> several discussions about the guard being combat based units, while the
> >> reserve is based on suport.
> >
> > The reserves fall under the PCA while the Guard doesn't.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So, if I am right, what is the difference between a guard tank and a
> > regular
> >> troop tank?
> >
> > One is controlled by the State while the other is controlled by the
Feds.
> > This may vary at times for the Guards but the equipment does not fall
under
> > the PCA and neither does the Actives. To stir a hornets nest, Waco, TX,
> > some of that equipment was provided by the Federal Troops. They delived
it,
> > trained the FBI on it and then sat on their hands. It's not the
equipment
> > but the personnel that PCA is applied.
>
> You may interpret it that way, but from Nins earlier post:
>
> <Q> 18 USC 1385: 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. </Q> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html
>
> I see that 'any part' as including equipment.
Just recently, the survailance done in DC by the chopper was done by the
USAF. There are acceptions all over the place. The Prez can authorize the
use of Federal Troops and Equipment when the Governor requests it. Without
the Governors request, it falls under the the PCA. The POTUS cannot
arbitrarily dispact Federal Troops.
>
> Also, the Guard *is* the Army in today's force structure.
>
> If you believe in what you say, then when Sec Ridge asks for his 'Homeland
> Security and Defence Force' (in a few years), you won't object to arming
it
> with all available military hardware? (They already are considering using
> military bases like Selfridge Field ANG as *their* bases.)
The the State Governors permission, there is no conflict here. It all stems
on the States Rights allowing it and not the Feds wanting it.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You may not understand or wish to acknowledge the difference, but it
> >>> is there and significant and one of the few state's rights left.
> >>
> >> Does the state have the right to use combat military force on its
> > citizens?
> >> The PCA was built with this thought - it became *illegal.*
> >
> > The Guard can be called up by the State Governor for many duties
including
> > Riot Control and Police Support actions. The Reserves and the Regulars
> > cannot.
>
> See my response to Lee. In 1876, when the PCA was written, the State
Armies
> were no where near as trained and as equipped as those of today (by design
I
> believe in both cases). Times have changed - the Guard is a much a part of
> the National Defense System as the Air Force.
Only if the various Governors want it. Some have restared the old State
Guard units that once existed. California for one and a few others. The
Guard no longer has the intended mission it once had and the Feds seem to
have ceased control. This is not what was intended at all. Look for a
change away from National Guards to the State Guard slowly.
> >
> > The reason behind the PCA is to prevent the President from naming
himself as
> > King and having the means to make it happen. It dates back a ways but
our
> > founding Fathers curtailed the Presidents powers to prevent a Monarch
from
> > being created. Sort of like what the Colonies had before the
Declaration of
> > Independance.
>
> I don't think so. What you say is covered by the Constitution, by having
> Congress declare wars, and more importantly, by the requirement to get
> congress to fund the military every two years. Since this issue was part
of
> the 'standing army' debate, I hardly think they'd wait 90 years to address
> it.
The Prez can wage war for 90 days without the aproval of Congress. He just
has to inform them after the fact. The Congress can at that time decide
whether it's warranted or not. If they choose that is it not correct, they
can, then, recall the troops and take other steps. As far as I know, this
has never happened but it's on the books. Right now, the National Guard
would be considered both a Citizens Army and a Federal Reserve. But it
would not be considered under the "Standing Army" ruling although that
argument could be raised.
>
> While I haven't read the transcript, I'll bet the debates on the passage
of
> the PCA did not cover this point at all.
<snipped>
> So, there you have it - IMHO, the reason that the PCA was enacted started
> with Shays, and ended with Forrest. In between, that 90 years was
somethin'
> else.
Good reading.
It shows, once again, that if a prez gets in office that is willing to
misuse those troops, it could happen again. The PCA put an end to that but
not for good.
What I have learned from you is, the National Guard should be changed to the
State Guard. That may happen but not in the near future.
>
>
> Izzy
> Note: Some of the above history from: USA, RIP by Jim Davidson
>
>
~Nins~
> in article bcsg3g$835$1...@news.chatlink.com, Daryl Hunt at
> dh...@i70west.nospam.net wrote on 6/19/03 10:09 AM:
> Also, the Guard *is* the Army in today's force structure.
<Q>The National Guard has a unique dual mission that consists of both
Federal and State roles. For state missions, the governor, through the state
Adjutant General, commands Guard forces. The governor can call the National
Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms,
fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances. In addition, the President of the
United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal
missions.</Q> http://www.arng.army.mil/About_Us/
Constitutional Charter of the Guard
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=11
Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional
grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be
applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
The last sentence would indicate there may be a different set of standards
on the state level. It may be different (what they can or can't be used for)
on the state level. From my understanding of the different things I've read
the PCA only applies to the NG when called up by the President, and does not
apply when called up by the state's governor. When the NG was used as
airport security after 9/11, Bush didn't call them up, but he did make a
request of the governors to do so and they did it. The loophole (for lack
of better word) is in *who* does the activation....President or Governor.
<snip>
Colin Campbell
>Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional
>grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union,
>suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be
>applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
It is _not_ the militia.
--
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved
victory - apart from some technicalities."
Iraqi Ambassador Mohsen Khalil after the fall of Baghdad
Daryl Hunt
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:13:10 GMT, "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three
constitutional
> >grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union,
> >suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to
be
> >applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
>
> Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
> It is _not_ the militia.
The National Guards role has changed in the last 50 years. I agree it
should no longer be considered a Militia. I would be more prone to call it
a Reserve. The law was written before all the federal bucks was approved to
fund many of the Guards equipment and training. Like all things, the
Governors jumped on it because they got more for the buck but lost much of
the overall control. Take the bucks and you pay the piper.
I look for more states to start State Guards which would not be Fed
sponsored and would fall well within the old laws that the National Guard
used to fall under. I also see the National Guards as part of a standing
Army since it can be called up by the Feds without the States approval.
~Nins~
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:13:10 GMT, "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three
constitutional
> >grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union,
> >suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to
be
> >applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
>
> Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
> It is _not_ the militia.
Thanks for catching that error, Colin. I stand corrected. :-) The rest of
my post is what I wanted to convey, prob should've left that find of my
quick search out.
~Nins~
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:13:10 GMT, "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three
constitutional
> >grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union,
> >suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to
be
> >applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
>
> Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
> It is _not_ the militia.
Oops, forgot this Colin, sorry. Had a question: The above Clause is listed
on the Charter page of the NG too.
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
If the NG is not included in 'militia' in this clause, then why do they have
the following description "tells what the grounds are for calling up the
Guard." listed under the link for that clause at the above link? Can you
see how I find that confusing? :)
Colin Campbell
>Oops, forgot this Colin, sorry. Had a question: The above Clause is listed
>on the Charter page of the NG too.
>http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
>If the NG is not included in 'militia' in this clause, then why do they have
>the following description "tells what the grounds are for calling up the
>Guard." listed under the link for that clause at the above link? Can you
>see how I find that confusing? :)
That page is confusing. The national Guard was created in 1903 by the
'Dick Act.' This law authorized the Army to take militia units and
bring them into the force structure in peacetime. When this occurs
those units cease being militia and become a component of the Army
called the ' National Guard.'
~Nins~
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:39:37 GMT, "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Oops, forgot this Colin, sorry. Had a question: The above Clause is
listed
> >on the Charter page of the NG too.
> >http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
> >If the NG is not included in 'militia' in this clause, then why do they
have
> >the following description "tells what the grounds are for calling up the
> >Guard." listed under the link for that clause at the above link? Can
you
> >see how I find that confusing? :)
>
> That page is confusing. The national Guard was created in 1903 by the
> 'Dick Act.' This law authorized the Army to take militia units and
> bring them into the force structure in peacetime. When this occurs
> those units cease being militia and become a component of the Army
> called the ' National Guard.'
But, the clause, despite the wording of it still applies to the NG (as far
as the grounds for calling up in the federal sense), right? Maybe someone
should point out that confusing part of that page to them? They don't have
to change it but perhaps provide a brief clarification on the wording, or
something. Oh well...I do appreciate your clearing it up for me. Beautiful
day here..gotta run. Toodles.
Colin Campbell
>> That page is confusing. The national Guard was created in 1903 by the
>> 'Dick Act.' This law authorized the Army to take militia units and
>> bring them into the force structure in peacetime. When this occurs
>> those units cease being militia and become a component of the Army
>> called the ' National Guard.'
>
>But, the clause, despite the wording of it still applies to the NG (as far
>as the grounds for calling up in the federal sense), right? Maybe someone
>should point out that confusing part of that page to them? They don't have
>to change it but perhaps provide a brief clarification on the wording, or
>something. Oh well...I do appreciate your clearing it up for me. Beautiful
>day here..gotta run. Toodles.
The laws and rules for calling up the militia do not apply to the
National Guard (and vice versa).
Legally, a member of the National Guard is not in the militia. The
militia is only males between certain ages with no federal military
affiliation.
David Casey
> They are federalized and therefore under the command of the PUTUS.
> Don't federalize them and they are under the command of the various
> State Governors.
(Can't resist)
PUTUS?
> There is a little writup in the Colorado National Guard Regs that
> states that only those with reserve status can be called up by the
> Federals. The ones that are not in reserve status or not eligible to
> be drafted (many guards fall into this category) can only be called up
> with the Governors permission. There are many guards that are under
> the reserve status that can be called up without the Governors
> approval. This has never been tested in court since not a single
> Colorado Governor has opted to use it.
Cite please since any governor refusing to allow their troops to be
called up would quickly be looking for new funding.
> Only if the various Governors want it. Some have restared the old
> State Guard units that once existed. California for one and a few
> others. The Guard no longer has the intended mission it once had and
> the Feds seem to have ceased control. This is not what was intended
> at all. Look for a change away from National Guards to the State
> Guard slowly.
State guard? Are you joking? Take a look at your state guard sometime.
Tell me exactly how they're going to accomplish an ADA mission. Or armor
mission. Hell, here in New Mexico the only ones I've seen are either so
overweight or underage there is no way in the world they'll ever do more
than support the Guard.
~Nins~
> in article bd0am8$u7s$1...@news.chatlink.com, Daryl Hunt at
> dh...@i70west.nospam.net wrote on 6/20/03 8:59 PM:
>
> (snip)
> >
> (Where does all the
> time go??<g>)
It goes to the past. <g>
Daryl Hunt
> in article bd0am8$u7s$1...@news.chatlink.com, Daryl Hunt at
> dh...@i70west.nospam.net wrote on 6/20/03 8:59 PM:
>
> (snip)
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > It shows, once again, that if a prez gets in office that is willing to
> > misuse those troops, it could happen again. The PCA put an end to that
but
> > not for good.
> >
> > What I have learned from you is, the National Guard should be changed to
the
> > State Guard. That may happen but not in the near future.
>
> units that belong to the state that are called up for state emergencies.
> That puts the Gov in charge of a force that could be loosly called the
> 'organized militia.'
>
> I still think that a 'State Guard' might have too much 'combat' power, and
> be just a clone of the thing it is supposed to replace.
Using the California State Guard as a template, they are no more "Combat
Power" than the State Police (chips) or any other police or fire department
since these are the folks that primarily make up the bulk of it's members.
I doubt if there is one single M1 Abrams in their inventory. Can you
imagine having a hostage situation resolved by placing a 120mm into the
building?
Daryl Hunt
"David Casey" <david...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93A19B720B3EFda...@140.99.99.130...
> On 20 Jun 2003, Daryl Hunt wrote in us.military.army:
>
> > They are federalized and therefore under the command of the PUTUS.
> > Don't federalize them and they are under the command of the various
> > State Governors.
>
> (Can't resist)
>
> PUTUS?
Spelling Copping should be beneath you (couldn't resist either)
>
> > There is a little writup in the Colorado National Guard Regs that
> > states that only those with reserve status can be called up by the
> > Federals. The ones that are not in reserve status or not eligible to
> > be drafted (many guards fall into this category) can only be called up
> > with the Governors permission. There are many guards that are under
> > the reserve status that can be called up without the Governors
> > approval. This has never been tested in court since not a single
> > Colorado Governor has opted to use it.
>
> Cite please since any governor refusing to allow their troops to be
> called up would quickly be looking for new funding.
Thank you for backing up what I already said. Yes, it's about funding. If
the Guv were to refuse those that he could refuse then the funding would be
withheld by the feds. And this would be a bad thing?
>
> > Only if the various Governors want it. Some have restared the old
> > State Guard units that once existed. California for one and a few
> > others. The Guard no longer has the intended mission it once had and
> > the Feds seem to have ceased control. This is not what was intended
> > at all. Look for a change away from National Guards to the State
> > Guard slowly.
>
> State guard? Are you joking? Take a look at your state guard sometime.
> Tell me exactly how they're going to accomplish an ADA mission. Or armor
> mission. Hell, here in New Mexico the only ones I've seen are either so
> overweight or underage there is no way in the world they'll ever do more
> than support the Guard.
The State Guard cannot be called up (for the most part) by the Feds. They
are there for the original intent of the National Guard that has since
become more Federal than State. In California, anyone that is a Chips or
Firefighter is automatically in the State Guard. Many of the Sherrifs
departments and city police have lent personnel as well. There are also
Civilians that have joined.
The fact remains that the original intent of the Guard has been lost
somewhere along the way and a Dual Mission has replaced it. And since much
of the Funding is Federal, the Feds can do what they wish. It's NOT a
militia anymore like it was prior to WWI. It should be considered part of
the standing Army considering it can be used as such. Like now. There are
many serving in Ft. Carson that are Federalized Guards insted of Active Duty
Regulars who have been sent overseas. That makes the Guards as much of a
standing army as the Regulars are.
Therefore, the Feds need to include the Guards funding with the Regular
Funding as well when they report it. It should be part of the total that is
reported to the General Public. While I don't suggest lowering it, I do
suggest being a bit more honest.
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>|Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
>|It is _not_ the militia.
>
>Not totally correct. The National Guard is part of the organized
>militia. The unorganized militia is made of all males, between the
>ages of 17 and 45, who are fit to serve (the law reads "of sound
>body"). Look up Title 10 USC Sect 311, 312. It also exempts certain
>folks from militia duties (ie being drafted).
The 'organized militia' is all persons who are part of a _state_
military organization that is not part of the US armed forces.
For example: the California State Militia is part of the organized
militia.
The California National Guard is not part of the organized militia
because it is a component of the army and as such its members are part
of the US Army.
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>The president is fully within his powers to order the US Marines into
>a state to stop riots. The president does not to get Congressional
>approval to use Marines as the Marines and Navy are not under the PCA.
>Remember when the Marines were used in South Central LA a few years
>back?
In the LA riots the marines contribution was merely symbolic (and then
their screwips were legendary).
95% of the soldiers on the street were _federalized_ National
Guardsmen. (Trivia note - during the LA riots the California National
Guard effectively ceased to exist and both the Army National Guard and
the Air National Guard were absorbed into the US Army and the US Air
Force respectively.)
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>Actually California's governor disbanded the State Guard then reformed
>it as police militia. All police and fire, to include prison guards,
>are now part of the State Guard and under the governor's authority.
>There is a movement to get rid of the National Guard and replace it
>with a militia that is totally made up of police and public safety
>personnel.
The California State Military Reserve still exists.
http://www.militarymuseum.org/CMH1.html
I don't know where this movement to get rid of the National Guard came
from - but don't take it seriously. If for not other reason - if you
man your reserve military force with nothing but critical public
safety people - you can never dare call them up.
The California National Guard is here to stay. It is too valuable to
the state and to the nation.
>There is a double push to get rid of the National Guard. The feds
>find it hard to deal with, a duplication of the Military reserves.
What is being duplicated? The National Guard is part of the 'Total
Army' force structure. As such the makeup of both the Reserve and
Guard complement each other in order to provide a trained and ready
mobilization reserve.
>And the states dislike having to have there citizens activated,
>especially when too many of the officers in the Guard are wealthy men
>who are using the Guard to complete their military service so that
>they can get the retirement.
Gee, all the officers I work with tend to be average working people.
In fact the two most common professions for Guard officers are: law
enforcement officer and teacher.
>Many of these officers have used
>political pressure to keep their units from being activated. Often
>they are transferred to units which are not being activated.
Actually, when this happens they are classified as 'excess.' In
today's climate if an NCO or Officer avoids a mobilizing with his/her
unit - his career is history.
In fact my California National Guard unit (mobilized Sept 8th of last
year) did leave a couple of senior NCOs behind when we deployed. They
have already been told that they are no longer needed in our unit.
Too many reservists and guardsmen have been mobilized for us to have
any sympathy on those who do not pull their fair share of the load.
Do you know anything about the Guard?
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>The National Guard is going away. The states will be offered enough
>incentive to give up the Guard to the reserves in exchange for a very
>well equipped State (Police) Guard. What will also have to happen is
>that there will also have to be a way to transfer military time so
>that military officers can become State Guard as a way to get
>retirement without having to worry about being activated.
That is assuming that those people are willing to become 'state
guard.' The California State Military reserve is made up of people
who want to play soldier without having to put up with the standards,
commitment and professionalism demanded of real soldiers.
My Shirt says "US Army" on it. My primary loyalty is to the
Constitution of the United States - California is merely the state I
live in.
Daryl Hunt
From your own URL (you really need to read it first)
Q. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CALIFORNIA STATE MILITARY RESERVE?
"First off, the California State Military Reserve (CA SMR) is NOT a private
militia. The CA SMR is part of the Total Force of the California State
Military Forces authorized by the Constitution of the State of California,
which include the California Army National Guard, the California Air
National Guard, and the California Naval Militia. "
It's a name given to the various Guard, Reserve and Militia groups in
California. It really doesn't exist. It's a grouping alone. I see one
Militia that is not under Federal Funding at all and is exempt from any
federal controls. The New "Militia" that has been formed is also outside of
any Federal Controls and the Governor can refuse the Federalizing of those
troops. If it is listed as a National Guard, the Feds can call them up at a
Federal Whim.
O is correct. Some states are getting a bit fed up of having the States to
help fund a National Force outside of their own states.
Daryl Hunt
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:38:35 GMT, OMEGA
> <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>
> >|Please note: The National Guard is a reserve component of the Army.
> >|It is _not_ the militia.
> >
> >Not totally correct. The National Guard is part of the organized
> >militia. The unorganized militia is made of all males, between the
> >ages of 17 and 45, who are fit to serve (the law reads "of sound
> >body"). Look up Title 10 USC Sect 311, 312. It also exempts certain
> >folks from militia duties (ie being drafted).
>
> The 'organized militia' is all persons who are part of a _state_
> military organization that is not part of the US armed forces.
>
> For example: the California State Militia is part of the organized
> militia.
Subject to only being called up for federal duty with the approval of the
Governor. The original intent of the various Guard Units.
>
> The California National Guard is not part of the organized militia
> because it is a component of the army and as such its members are part
> of the US Army.
Can be called up without a Governors Approval. Recieves heavy Federal
Funding.
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>Yes, but. Each state has its own PERSCOM, which means that records
>from the Guard are not sent to the right places so that the active
>duty and reserves can use them.
Those records are sent forward upon mobilization. Which is exactly
what happened to us.
>Notice that the Guard is not on
>https://www.2xcitizen.usar.army.mil If the Guard was truly part of the
>system, PERSCOM would have full access. Also Guard security
>clearances are bitch to work with as the security managers at the
>state level do not work with the national system. And it is going to
>be become more important as the federal government requires more and
>more state and local personal to have SECRET and TS-SCI clearance in
>order to be briefed on Homeland Security issues.
Personnel in the guard have to meet the same standards as people in
the active or reserve. For example every Military Policeman in my
unit is required to have a security clearance. The only difference
here is which office handles the paperwork.
>|Gee, all the officers I work with tend to be average working people.
>|In fact the two most common professions for Guard officers are: law
>|enforcement officer and teacher.
>
>How high up in the Guard are you? Work at a battalion headquarters?
>Or in a brigade HQ? Or at a divisional HQ? That is where the wealthy
>and powerful tend to find slots. Or at the state military offices
>(Adjutant General staff).
<Ahem>
Prior to this mobilization, I was on the 'personal staff' for
Commanding General, 40th ID (M). (Assistant Inspector General.)
Yes, I have served at a divisional headquarters, and since I was a
tanker - I have worked for/with many of the senior officers for the
last 10 years. I know many of them and am familiar with the
reputations of most of the others.
>What percentage of the Guard has seen activation? What units are
>exempt? Is your TAG being activated? Or his staff?
For 40th ID (M) - the only maneuver unit that has not been activead so
far is part of an 'enhanced readiness' brigade. Every other BN sized
unit either has been mobilized - or is scheduled to be mobilized.
(Since Sept 11th 40th ID has had a continuing mission of supplying 3
combat arms BNs plus appropriate support slices for Operation Noble
Eagle. This is in addition to supplying units for Enduring Freedom,
Iraqi Freedom and the Balkans.)
The TAG is a purely administrative headquarters that supports the
National guard units in the state. Unlike the maneuver units - they
do not have a mobilization mission.
Colin Campbell
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>As I understand, Gray Davis and the legislature did away with the CA
>State Military Reserve (State Guard) and replaced them with a force
>that is made up of police, fire fighters, correctional officers and
>other public safety officers. In turn for being mobilized for state
>missions, the legislature added a 4% increase to their pay.
Your 'understanding' is wrong. This did not occur.