BF2S Forums This terrifies me. It should terrify you as well.

all of your guns belong to me

better get that registered

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It hasn't been. It has been changed though - but quite a while ago.

Nuff said.

Not really. Changing it so the key points are no longer applicable (i.e. so the military can be used as law enforcement in extreme situations, at presidential disretion) is the same thing for the purposes of this discussion.


Except for the signing statement tacked on the end which says the president can still use the military as law enforcement if he feels like it.

Don't know if you've heard, but he's out of a job in a few months. At that point, his signing statements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

In a few months is not now. Now there is a workaround that the President can use to bypass Posse Comitatus and in any case, as ATG as points out, they didn't need the legislation in place for Waco.

And as I pointed out, posse comitatus was not violated at Waco. It only appears that way when you play fast and loose with the facts.

The intent of both the Warner amendment and the signing statement is to enable what is called Defense Support to Civil Authorities. It is disaster relief and recovery. That is all.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

In a few months is not now. Now there is a workaround that the President can use to bypass Posse Comitatus and in any case, as ATG as points out, they didn't need the legislation in place for Waco.

And as I pointed out, posse comitatus was not violated at Waco. It only appears that way when you play fast and loose with the facts.

How was it not violated?

Active military personnel and equipment were used for the purposes of law enforcement.

No, they weren't. Read the details.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The intent of both the Warner amendment and the signing statement is to enable what is called Defense Support to Civil Authorities. It is disaster relief and recovery. That is all.

That may be the intent. But the wording is such that military personnel could be used for law enforcement.

In the US, those functions are performed by law enforcement entities.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

How was it not violated?

Active military personnel and equipment were used for the purposes of law enforcement.

No, they weren't. Read the details.

I have read the details. Not feeling that the source provided by ATG was exactly unbiased, I read through the treasury report on the assault. I trust you will consider this a reliable source.

Here is what you said earlier:

FEOS wrote:

I will type it slowly for you: No active duty or federalized national guard participated in the assault. Flying observation aircraft and providing maintenance for the modified armored vehicles in the rear are not...repeat NOT...participating in the assault.

So, you believe that no national guard participated in the raid. Is that fair to assume from that?

It is fair to assume that I meant what I said: no federalized Guard participated in the raid. The Governor has authority under Title 32 of US Code--and in accordance with the Constitution--to use state Guardsmen in law enforcement roles.

Bertster7 wrote:

Report of THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY on the  BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh, September 1993 wrote:

Koresh had previously expressed hostility to ATF in Rodriguez's presence, and talked of ATF's coming to get him, but never before had he referred in this way to the National Guard. His reference to the Guard, which was indeed participating in the raid, was strong evidence that Koresh had specific information about the impending operation.

It would seem from the official report that the (state, not federal - which to be fair, you did make the distinction between) National Guard DID participate in the raid.

Yes...under Title 32 authorities, which is different and distinct from Guardsmen under federal (Title 10) authorities. Under Title 32, Guardsmen can perform law enforcement duties.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That may be the intent. But the wording is such that military personnel could be used for law enforcement.

In the US, those functions are performed by law enforcement entities.

And what do you mean by that? This is not about how those functions are performed, this is about how the law, as written, allows military personnel to be used as law enforcement. That signing statement does allow military personnel to be used for law enforcement purposes at presidential disretion. The intent is only vaguely relevant, since we all know how laws can all too often be used in ways in which they were not originally intended - which seems to be where the concern expressed in the OP stems from.

And in order for a law's Constitutionality to be contested, it must first be enforced/enacted. Unless and until the President tries to use active duty military in that manner, the point is irrelevant. Once he does, the legal challenges will ultimately determine the constitutionality of the signing statement. My guess is it would take about 10 seconds for the SCOTUS to strike it down.

That's just the way the system works over here.

ATG wrote:

MMMMKAY.

I guess the local law enforcement had tanks and satchel charges.

Good luck, btw, finding any of the stories archived on mainstream news sites. The Houstan Chronicle used to have day by day play by play stories listed.


Systematically, one by one, these have mostly all been removed from the internet and crackpot websites are all that is left, making it MUCH easier for people like FEOS to digest to whole cloth fabrication he repeats. Yet the fact of the crimes and the details are public record, and still remain if you look hard enough.

ATG, you're not the only person who has paid attention to this. Don't know if you remember, but I'm from the OKC area. Friends and family were hurt and killed in the bombing that resulted from Waco. Don't think for a second you have a monopoly on this.

As to your "tanks and satchel charges" statement: What makes you think only the military has breaching charges (which were the "satchel charges" you mention)? HRT (they're FBI) and ATF (they're not military) and many SWAT (they're not military either) have and use those types of charges regularly. The tanks you mention were provided by the military to the FBI and ATF...after their weapons had been removed. They basically became well-protected tractors at that point.

If you took off your conspiracist tinfoil hat for half a second and at least tried to look objectively at the situation, you'd see that the feds were heavy-handed, but the Davidians were not without fault, either. And you'd also see that the military played no role in the assault as you claim. Simply didn't happen.