Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

any info on New Orleans Bell South Bldg...

Expand Messages
  • Charles
    ... delurking .... Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
    Message 1 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      ... delurking ....

      Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and
      wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
      need this kind of protection? I understand some protection from the
      looting is required... but this almost sounds like Blackwater Pro's...
      is this a MAJOR comm hub of some sort?

      Thanks for the help...

      http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/50956.html

      "Law enforcement have absolutely lost their minds. Some guy wearing
      khaki fatigues and black vests which say Police on them have their
      faces covered in black ski masks and are touting M4-A1s with front hand
      grips -- like they're some kind of Delta Force operators waiting to hit
      the tire house. They're guarding the four corners around the Bell South
      building for crying out loud. And what, they need secret identities?
      Come on. You can just tell some of these guys have never gotten out
      before. Now's their big chance to play Army."
    • Jim Burks
      ... It s not a secret comm hub, but the main BellSouth / AT&T building on Poydras IS a major comm hub. If they were to lose it (flood, arson, looting), then
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Charles wrote:

        > Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and
        > wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
        > need this kind of protection? I understand some protection from the
        > looting is required... but this almost sounds like Blackwater Pro's...
        > is this a MAJOR comm hub of some sort?

        It's not a 'secret' comm hub, but the main BellSouth / AT&T building
        on Poydras IS a major comm hub. If they were to lose it (flood, arson,
        looting), then all the long distance from Biloxi, MS, halfway to
        Houston, TX and probably as far north as Natchez would be out. The
        little cellular they have in the area would be disrupted. The
        central business district (banks, other employers,) and 911 service
        would be crippled for MONTHS.

        The building is between the SuperDome and the Convention Center.
        Both locations were hit with some 'instability' last week.
        Luckily (actually, more due to Bell/AT&T's foresight) the
        building is on the high ground near the river, not in the flooded
        area.

        They are also (I'm sure) ferrying diesel in by the trailer truck
        load, as the building hasn't lost power throughout the storm,
        as far as I can tell.

        That building, along with the water, sewage treatment,
        electric supply and flood pumping stations is critical to
        the city's survival.

        They know that, so it's being well protected. No 'black hat' stuff,
        just common sense.
      • James Browne
        The BellSouth building probably carries communications for police/government. I can understand that they would be willing to protect it at all costs. They
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          The BellSouth building probably carries communications for
          police/government. I can understand that they would be willing to
          protect it at all costs. They had folks shooting at rescue helos.
          They had no idea what lengths people would go to to wreak havoc.

          On 9/6/05, Jim Burks <jburks2@...> wrote:
          > Charles wrote:
          >
          > > Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and
          > > wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
          > > need this kind of protection? I understand some protection from the
          > > looting is required... but this almost sounds like Blackwater Pro's...
          > > is this a MAJOR comm hub of some sort?
          >
          > It's not a 'secret' comm hub, but the main BellSouth / AT&T building
          > on Poydras IS a major comm hub. If they were to lose it (flood, arson,
          > looting), then all the long distance from Biloxi, MS, halfway to
          > Houston, TX and probably as far north as Natchez would be out. The
          > little cellular they have in the area would be disrupted. The
          > central business district (banks, other employers,) and 911 service
          > would be crippled for MONTHS.
          >
          > The building is between the SuperDome and the Convention Center.
          > Both locations were hit with some 'instability' last week.
          > Luckily (actually, more due to Bell/AT&T's foresight) the
          > building is on the high ground near the river, not in the flooded
          > area.
          >
          > They are also (I'm sure) ferrying diesel in by the trailer truck
          > load, as the building hasn't lost power throughout the storm,
          > as far as I can tell.
          >
          > That building, along with the water, sewage treatment,
          > electric supply and flood pumping stations is critical to
          > the city's survival.
          >
          > They know that, so it's being well protected. No 'black hat' stuff,
          > just common sense.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > Visit your group "coldwarcomms" on the web.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > ________________________________
          >


          --
          Jim Browne
        • Daryl R. Gibson
          ... From today s Wall Street Journal: Phone Networks Fail Once Again In a Disaster By DIONNE SEARCEY and JESSE DRUCKER Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Charles <the_zipper1@...> wrote:

            > if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
            >
            > need this kind of protection?

            From today's Wall Street Journal:

            Phone Networks
            Fail Once Again
            In a Disaster

            By DIONNE SEARCEY and JESSE DRUCKER
            Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
            September 6, 2005; Page A19

            NEW ORLEANS -- Nearly 1.8 million phone lines and countless cellphones
            were interrupted or went dead along the Gulf Coast. Thousands of New
            Orleans residents trapped in their homes by rising water couldn't call
            out to seek help. And friends and relatives couldn't contact them to
            find out whether they had escaped.

            For the third time in four years, vital telephone systems failed after
            a major disaster hit the U.S. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
            attacks, the blackout of 2003 and now Hurricane Katrina, residents and
            even emergency personnel found themselves cut off. Even as of
            yesterday, large parts of the telecom system in the area hit by Katrina
            still had spotty or no service, with BellSouth saying about one million
            of its lines were down or working only sporadically.

            What went wrong this time?

            The systems responsible for transmitting Internet data, landline and
            cellphone traffic broke down after backup generators, designed to keep
            phone lines powered, either ran out of fuel or were flooded because
            they were located on lower floors of phone-equipment centers rather
            than out of reach from flood water. Phone lines broke as poles went
            down from high winds or the flooding. And an onslaught of calls
            overwhelmed the few lines that still were operating.

            To BellSouth Corp., the region's dominant phone company and part-owner
            of cellular giant Cingular Wireless, Katrina posed a set of unique
            challenges: Many BellSouth employees trained to repair and maintain its
            networks became victims themselves. Some of the company's equipment in
            New Orleans is old and vulnerable to water damage; splices in its
            copper phone lines, for example, are covered with paper instead of
            protective plastic. And at its key New Orleans operations center, the
            building was threatened by reports of looters and employees had to be
            evacuated. BellSouth expects the hurricane damage will cost it $400
            million to $600 million.

            The situation could deteriorate if critical equipment -- including
            machinery at one telecom hub in New Orleans that is the nerve center
            for large parts of the region -- can't be fed constantly with fuel as
            well as water used for cooling. Cingular, meanwhile, said yesterday
            that its repair crews had entered New Orleans and some cellular calls
            were going through, though at "reduced levels," and competitor Sprint
            Nextel Corp. said it had gotten 35 of its 208 cellular sites in the
            greater New Orleans area running, allowing outgoing calls for the first
            time since the storm hit a week ago.

            How can phone systems be made to withstand future disasters? Engineers
            and telecom executives say that part of the answer could be for the
            networks to create additional capacity and to install more emergency
            power systems at secure locations. They add that additional wireless
            infrastructure -- possibly incorporating satellite or microwave
            technology -- could provide backup systems in emergencies.

            "There are new services that would incorporate a mixture of systems so
            that in events like this there is a higher degree of survivability,"
            said John Muleta, an attorney at Venable LLP and the recently departed
            head of the wireless bureau of the Federal Communications Commission.

            But the FCC doesn't require phone companies to have a certain amount of
            emergency power. Plus, the flooding last week of numerous telephone
            central offices that house switches -- the specialized computers that
            route calls -- raises questions about whether those centers are being
            built or sited to withstand the most serious disasters.

            Yet operators of the phone systems were hardly caught by surprise.
            BellSouth, whose engineers have vast experience dealing with
            hurricanes, prepared meticulously for the storm and began tracking it
            two weeks ago from yesterday as waves were building. On the day before
            Katrina hit the mainland, the Atlanta-based company sent a corporate
            jet with a stash of satellite phones, food and water for personnel at a
            key operations center in downtown New Orleans and elsewhere on Gulf
            Coast. The company sandbagged back-up power generators at switching
            centers throughout the region and propped floodgates against doors. It
            gathered technicians from all over the region to be on standby for
            repairs.

            The next night, things went wrong: The power at the key New Orleans hub
            went out and the building switched to generators. The rain was so
            fierce that water blew into the window vents where the machines usually
            release heat. Water got inside the generators and splattered onto the
            floor.

            At a command center in Atlanta, a white map showed an ever-increasing
            number of red smudges indicating power outages in hundreds of locations
            -- a telltale sign that phone service was also out, or going to be out
            soon, in those places.

            Phone-switching centers are equipped with large batteries that kick in
            if the generators fail, but the batteries last only about eight hours.
            So BellSouth began assembling 1,200 power generators from all over its
            nine-state region and hauling them on trucks toward areas outside the
            hurricane's path. The trucks started moving into some areas that
            weren't flooded as the storm subsided. By Tuesday, the day after the
            storm hit, the company was starting to assemble tents where displaced
            employees and their families could shower and sleep.

            At the New Orleans hub, repair efforts grew complicated because so many
            employees had brought their families there to ride out the storm
            because the building was thought to be hurricane-proof. By Wednesday,
            the center's plumbing and sanitation had gone out. Outside the brick
            building, people started collecting on the flooded streets. Police
            warned the company about the breakdown of security. The building could
            be a target for looters, they cautioned, because it was one of the few
            places in town with electricity.

            That night, with state troopers on guard, 82 employees and their
            families still at the building piled into buses and headed out of the
            city as they were threatened by looters. They made sure the air
            conditioners were running and the generators had enough fuel as they
            left the building empty for the night. But by 6 a.m. the next day the
            air conditioners had run out of water needed to chill them. Workers
            returned just as things were starting to heat up. On Thursday morning,
            the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent six heavily armed officers to
            the building to make sure no looters could get in. They were followed
            by a skeleton crew of engineers to oversee the equipment.

            Meanwhile, technicians and other workers gathered at a corporate
            landing strip outside the city to receive tetanus and hepatitis shots
            before they boarded a company jet to deliver bullhorns, diapers, toilet
            paper, juice and water to tent cities where stranded employees could
            recover.

            The downed landline connections also crippled the area's cellphone
            networks. That's because much of a wireless call is actually carried
            over traditional phone lines. And even in areas where the landline
            connections to the cellphone networks stayed up, power at the cellphone
            transmission towers often ran out, knocking the towers offline.

            Such a situation could be mitigated, some telecom engineers and telecom
            executives say, by linking certain cellphone towers to satellite or
            microwave communications systems that could be deployed in an
            emergency. Such technology already is used in some sparsely populated
            rural areas, where cell towers connect to faraway switching stations
            via microwaves, not underground cables. And several carriers are
            examining using the hotly anticipated technology known as WiMAX to
            provide a similar service: wireless connections to the wired network.

            Paul Kolodzy, an engineering consultant and former chairman of the
            FCC's spectrum policy task force, says there's another step cellular
            companies could take: encouraging their customers to use text messaging
            or email sent from their phones during a crisis. That's because a
            12-line wireless email or text message takes up about as much network
            capacity as a single second of talking on a cellphone. In fact, text
            messaging was one of the few ways in which many Katrina refugees could
            make any contact with others last week.





            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal,
            keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole"
            --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu
            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            Daryl R. Gibson, MCSE
            Office: (801)422-2950 Cell: (801)367-4341
            Home: (702)734-6153, Utah Residence: (801)802-6348
          • Kenneth Coney
            Someone hasn t opened their law books lately. It is a Federal crime to travel masked under color of authority while armed. A civil rights statute.
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Someone hasn't opened their law books lately. It is a Federal crime to
              travel masked under color of authority while armed. A civil rights statute.


              Charles wrote:

              >... delurking ....
              >
              >Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and
              >wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
              >need this kind of protection? I understand some protection from the
              >looting is required... but this almost sounds like Blackwater Pro's...
              >is this a MAJOR comm hub of some sort?
              >
              >Thanks for the help...
              >
              >http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/50956.html
              >
              >"Law enforcement have absolutely lost their minds. Some guy wearing
              >khaki fatigues and black vests which say Police on them have their
              >faces covered in black ski masks and are touting M4-A1s with front hand
              >grips -- like they're some kind of Delta Force operators waiting to hit
              >the tire house. They're guarding the four corners around the Bell South
              >building for crying out loud. And what, they need secret identities?
              >Come on. You can just tell some of these guys have never gotten out
              >before. Now's their big chance to play Army."
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Spencer
              They aren t traveling under color of authority , they ARE authority. MA BELL is back, and boy is she pissed! [Non-text portions of this message have been
              Message 6 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                They aren't traveling under "color of authority", they ARE authority.


                MA BELL is back, and boy is she pissed!



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • paul rosa
                My reading of various news articles (see today s Washington Post Business section) is that they ve had to bring in armed security to protect the diesel fuel
                Message 7 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  My reading of various news articles (see today's Washington Post
                  Business section) is that they've had to bring in armed security to
                  protect the diesel fuel supply for the generators from being looted,
                  both enroute to and at the facility. Actually, I'm familiar with
                  Blackwater and they would be a pretty solid choice for this assignment

                  Paul Rosa
                  Harpers Ferry, WV

                  Charles wrote:

                  >... delurking ....
                  >
                  >Saw the following on a blog from some ppl still in New Orleans and
                  >wonder if anyone can clarify the reason the Bell South building would
                  >need this kind of protection? I understand some protection from the
                  >looting is required... but this almost sounds like Blackwater Pro's...
                  >is this a MAJOR comm hub of some sort?
                  >
                  >Thanks for the help...
                  >
                  >http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/50956.html
                  >
                  >"Law enforcement have absolutely lost their minds. Some guy wearing
                  >khaki fatigues and black vests which say Police on them have their
                  >faces covered in black ski masks and are touting M4-A1s with front hand
                  >grips -- like they're some kind of Delta Force operators waiting to hit
                  >the tire house. They're guarding the four corners around the Bell South
                  >building for crying out loud. And what, they need secret identities?
                  >Come on. You can just tell some of these guys have never gotten out
                  >before. Now's their big chance to play Army."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • wwcasey
                  The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents any Federal military unit (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, with certain exceptions, Coast Guard, and the National
                  Message 8 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents any Federal military unit
                    (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, with certain exceptions, Coast Guard,
                    and the National Guard once they have been federalized) from being
                    used in law enforcement. However, it does not prevent them from
                    securing federal installations or other installations vital to
                    national interests. There were several reports that immediately after
                    Katrina passed (and before the levee breached) that a number of
                    installations in New Orleans had been secured. I would assume these to
                    be vital communications, DEA, FBI, Federal Court, Federal Reserve, and
                    other similar installations.

                    As for the black masks, that one I don't know about.

                    Walt

                    --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Spencer <slholcom@p...> wrote:
                    > They aren't traveling under "color of authority", they ARE authority.
                    >
                    >
                    > MA BELL is back, and boy is she pissed!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Kenneth Coney
                    The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does *NOT* in any way prohibit the use of the Navy or the Marines for law enforcement, nor does it mention the Coast
                    Message 9 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does *NOT* in any way prohibit the
                      use of the Navy or the Marines for law enforcement, nor does it mention
                      the Coast Guard. Even the prohibitions against the usage of the Army or
                      Air Force contain a broad "weasel clause" which would at first glance be
                      fully met by the Stafford Act (ie if FEMA or the Presdent declare an
                      emergency of national significance).
                      The Posse Comitatus Act can be found at
                      http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+696+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281385%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20


                      wwcasey wrote:

                      >The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents any Federal military unit
                      >(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, with certain exceptions, Coast Guard,
                      >and the National Guard once they have been federalized) from being
                      >used in law enforcement. However, it does not prevent them from
                      >securing federal installations or other installations vital to
                      >national interests. There were several reports that immediately after
                      >Katrina passed (and before the levee breached) that a number of
                      >installations in New Orleans had been secured. I would assume these to
                      >be vital communications, DEA, FBI, Federal Court, Federal Reserve, and
                      >other similar installations.
                      >
                      >As for the black masks, that one I don't know about.
                      >
                      >Walt
                      >
                      >--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Spencer <slholcom@p...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >>They aren't traveling under "color of authority", they ARE authority.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>MA BELL is back, and boy is she pissed!
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Spencer
                      The fact that this item has nothing to do with coldwar.com (other than it s an AT&T/Bellsouth hub) is one thing. I for one don t care if the building is
                      Message 10 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The fact that this item has nothing to do with "coldwar.com" (other than it's an AT&T/Bellsouth hub) is one thing. I for one don't care if the building is protected by local law enforcement, the FBI, a fully outfitted U S Air FORCE wing, or a retired guard from AT&T's Sandia Corp. with an old atomic warhead. Are you really upset their protecting the building and its functions?


                        MA BELL is back, and boy is she pissed!



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Bill Smith
                        Isn t the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization? Kenneth Coney wrote:The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does *NOT* in
                        Message 11 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?

                          Kenneth Coney <superc@...> wrote:The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does *NOT* in any way prohibit the
                          use of the Navy or the Marines for law enforcement, nor does it mention
                          the Coast Guard. Even the prohibitions against the usage of the Army or


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Kenneth Coney
                          Complete truth. They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland. I have no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in Posse Comitatas.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Complete truth. They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland. I have
                            no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in Posse
                            Comitatas.

                            Bill Smith wrote:

                            >Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                            >
                            >
                          • thomasbmoran@netscape.net
                            In time of war the Coast Guard comes under the Navy, as it did in WW2. TBMoran ... __________________________________________________________________ Switch to
                            Message 13 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In time of war the Coast Guard comes under the Navy, as it did in WW2.

                              TBMoran


                              Kenneth Coney <superc@...> wrote:

                              >Complete truth.  They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland.  I have
                              >no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in Posse
                              >Comitatas.
                              >
                              >Bill Smith wrote:
                              >
                              >>Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                              >>  
                              >>
                              >
                              >

                              __________________________________________________________________
                              Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
                              As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

                              Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

                              New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
                              Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
                              Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
                            • Kenneth Coney
                              Yes but the Navy is not affected by Posse Commitatus either, so why would someone assume the Coast Guard was?
                              Message 14 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes but the Navy is not affected by Posse Commitatus either, so why
                                would someone assume the Coast Guard was?

                                thomasbmoran@... wrote:

                                >In time of war the Coast Guard comes under the Navy, as it did in WW2.
                                >
                                >TBMoran
                                >
                                >
                                >Kenneth Coney <superc@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >>Complete truth. They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland. I have
                                >>no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in Posse
                                >>Comitatas.
                                >>
                                >>Bill Smith wrote:
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>>Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >
                                >__________________________________________________________________
                                >Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
                                >As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
                                >
                                >Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
                                >
                                >New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
                                >Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
                                >Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Mike Magnus
                                Then this statement from http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm is incorrect? To understand the extent to which the act has
                                Message 15 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Then this statement from http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm is incorrect?


                                  "To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what
                                  circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army,
                                  Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military
                                  manpower resources of the National Guard."

                                  From: "Kenneth Coney" <superc@...>


                                  > Yes but the Navy is not affected by Posse Commitatus either...
                                • Gregory W. Moore
                                  GA, Mike, et al of the group... I hope that I am not being too off the wall here, but I would presume, that we have had some reorganization of policy since
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    GA, Mike, et al of the group...
                                    I hope that I am not being too off the wall here, but I would presume,
                                    that we have had some "reorganization" of policy since the terrorist
                                    attacks of 9/11, especially when it comes to the use of military
                                    response. Personally, in this case, as in many cases since that
                                    horrific date, I do not find this to be a bad thing..... If one can
                                    believe one iota of what was being reported in regards to looting (I am
                                    not talking about survivors trying to get basic life support necessities
                                    here, I am talking about "roving bands" of looting thugs, takingmaterial
                                    which couldn't be made to work in a city with a dead infrastructure (
                                    electronics, luxury items, etc), and the deliberate setting of fires,
                                    assaulting other survivors,etc, as seems to happen with great
                                    "cooincidence" in most looting situations, as well as the random gunfire
                                    at rescue personnel, would, to me, demand response in kind. OK, I have
                                    absolutely NO way of proving the veracity of these reports, and knowing
                                    the propensity of the MSM to follow the "If it Bleeds, it Leads" maxim,
                                    ad infinitum, with the addition of the multiple hearsay component of
                                    any of these "looting" or "atrocity" stories, which will inevitably
                                    surface in a disaster situation, If I were to be placed in charge I
                                    would sure as all hell have issued orders to make sure any looters,
                                    rioters, assaulters, and random shooters were dealt with in a rather
                                    sudden and permanent fashion, with extreme predjudice.. Nothing
                                    personal, that's the way it's done..in the real world.

                                    While I have tremendous respect for the Posse Comitatus Act, as well as
                                    Strict Constitutional interpretation, I feel that if things go pear
                                    shaped, then you darn well have to think on the spot..... If you have a
                                    valuable comm center, that absolutely has to be protected, and wasn't
                                    flooded beyond repair, then it would behoove the powers that be to
                                    provide a maximum show of force. Any major communication hub, today, is
                                    a Homeland Security asset, and should be protected as such..

                                    In the halcyon days of the cold war, often we protected these assets by
                                    hiding them in plain sight, as (at the time) we felt that our enemies
                                    were external. Sadly. all that has now changed, forever. Terrorism is
                                    bad enough to defend against, but Terrorism, combined with political
                                    correctness of not being able to name one's enemy is even worse. This
                                    is the state we have now reached.

                                    Posse Comitatus? Sure, but I do believe it has been trumped by Homeland
                                    Security, and the Patriot Act. We might not like it, we might not agree
                                    with it, but unfortunately, there it is, and for the future, it's the
                                    best we have to protect against those who would destroy us.

                                    As far as the Bell South Bldg, and the infrastructure which presumably
                                    has remained intact, well. IMHO protect it with any and all force deemed
                                    necessary, military or civilian, to prevent entry, looting, and the
                                    inevitible vandalism which would occur if such a building were left
                                    unguarded. Yes, it's a sad commentary on the state of todays society,
                                    but a true one.......

                                    OK, < / rant> feel free to flame at will (huge evil grin)

                                    Greg "GW" Moore
                                    Cold Warrior Communicator and proud to be one ;-)

                                    (Hot War Communicator as well --hi--)

                                    Mike Magnus wrote:

                                    > Then this statement from
                                    > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm is
                                    > incorrect?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > "To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is
                                    > important to understand to whom the act applies and under what
                                    > circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all
                                    > U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army,
                                    > Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it
                                    > does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military
                                    > manpower resources of the National Guard."
                                    >
                                    > From: "Kenneth Coney" <superc@...>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Yes but the Navy is not affected by Posse Commitatus either...
                                    >

                                    --

                                    Happily turning electricity into RF energy for almost 40 years,
                                    on land, sea and air, professional and amateur,
                                    around the clock and around the world. KEEP CW ALIVE!
                                    Become an Elmer today!!! http://www.fists.org/
                                    FISTS #9404

                                    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
                                    --Edmund Burke
                                    Greg Moore NNN0BVN PA
                                    U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS)
                                    Official Pennsylvania Area Website:
                                    http://pages.prodigy.net/nnn0fbk/mars.htm
                                    Official Northeast Area Website:
                                    http://www.navymars.org/northeast/index.htm
                                    Navy-Marine Corps MARS: Proudly Serving Those Who Serve."
                                    E-Mail (MARS) nnn0bvn@...
                                    E-Mail (ARRL) wa3ivx@...
                                    ******************************************************************************************************

                                    PRESERVATIONS OFFICER: USS AMERICA (CV/CVA-66) MUSEUM FOUNDATION
                                    Please visit us on the web at http://www.ussamerica-museumfoundation.org

                                    SIGN OUR GUESTBOOK! KEEP HER MEMORY ALIVE!

                                    THIS YEAR, THE FINEST CARRIER THAT EVER SAILED THE 7 SEAS WILL
                                    BE GONE FOREVER, HER CALLSIGN NMIB (LATER NUSA) NEVER TO BE
                                    HEARD AGAIN, NOR BE SEEN FLYING PROUDLY FLYING FROM THE HALLIARD
                                    WHILE ENTERING OR LEAVING PORT.

                                    SHE MAY BE SUNK, IGNOMINIOUSLY, BY THE NAVY, SANS COLORS, SANS HONORS
                                    BUT WE, HER LOYAL CREW, AND SHIPMATES, WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HER FOR
                                    CARRYING US INTO HARMS WAY, AND BACK AGAIN WITH OLD GLORY FLYING AT THE
                                    GAFF, AND WITH HONOR APLENTY. AT LEAST WE TRIED TO SAVE YOU FOR A MUSEUM, AS BEFITS A SHIP CARRYING THE NAME OF OUR GREAT REPUBLIC.

                                    BUT SOMETIMES YOU JUST CAN'T WORK MIRACLES WITH MORONS.
                                    THEY WOULD RATHER POLLUTE AND FOUL THE SAME OCEANS THE USS AMERICA
                                    OMCE SAILED HONORABLY, WITH NAVAL SPIT AND POLISH
                                    AND TOTAL PRIDE FROM EVERY OFFICER AND ENLISTED MAN

                                    NERK NERK NERK DE NMIB NMIB NMIB SK SK SK





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Kenneth Coney
                                    There are a whole bunch of statements in the web link you posted. Some are true, at least one is wrong according to web link at
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      There are a whole bunch of statements in the web link you posted. Some
                                      are true, at least one is wrong according to web link at
                                      http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+696+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281385%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
                                      (which I trust as the Congress are indeed the ones who write the law),
                                      and some of his statements subject to interpretation.

                                      "The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military
                                      forces.[2] <#_edn2> While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy,
                                      and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to
                                      the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the
                                      National Guard.[3] <#_edn3>" is a bizarre mixed statement. The
                                      references at the bottom of his page 1) contains the same language as
                                      the link I point to above, 2) says "The act as originally passed
                                      referenced only limitations upon the Army. After World War II, it was
                                      amended to include the Air Force. By DoD Directive 5525.5, the
                                      limitations of the act have been administratively adopted to apply to
                                      the Navy and Marine Corps as well." while 3) says, "The peacetime law
                                      enforcement mission of the Coast Guard has been well recognized since
                                      the founding of its parent agency, the Revenue Marine, in 1790." How he
                                      twists that to include the Navy and the Marines into the Posse
                                      Commitatus Act is perhaps best explained by his statement "the
                                      limitations of the act have been administratively adopted to apply to
                                      the Navy and Marine Corps as well." An administrative adaptation of a
                                      law or rule by a military commander or a temporary secretary (all agency
                                      heads are temporary four year appointments and anything they say or
                                      decision they make can easily be reversed by the next one) is a long,
                                      long, way from truthfully saying "while the Act applies to ..., Navy and
                                      Marines..." Indeed the '99 shooting incident he describes (the boy is
                                      believed to have been shooting at what he thought was a rabbit or a
                                      badger versus a cammied Marine laying prone among the brush) arose
                                      specifically out of a decision to toss that adaptation for the Marine
                                      Corps into the trash can, where it perhaps belonged as Congress knew of
                                      a Navy and a Marine Corps when they wrote the original statute but
                                      instead originally chose to allow such law enforcement action by those
                                      same organizations.



                                      Mike Magnus wrote:

                                      >Then this statement from http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm is incorrect?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >"To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what
                                      >circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army,
                                      >Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military
                                      >manpower resources of the National Guard."
                                      >
                                      >From: "Kenneth Coney" <superc@...>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >>Yes but the Navy is not affected by Posse Commitatus either...
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • David Lesher
                                      Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: The Posse Comitatas issue is less then simple. ISTM as passed, it applied to the Army, but NOT the
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:


                                        The Posse Comitatas issue is less then simple. ISTM as passed,
                                        it applied to the Army, but NOT the Marines or obviously the
                                        Air Force. They were later added by administrative regulation.

                                        The Marines were exempted originally since they predated the
                                        Continental Congress, as I recall. {Note the US Marshals also
                                        have fewer constraints that FBI/USSS/BATF/etc by virtue of
                                        age...}

                                        The USCG is NOT subject; they are chartered as a LEA with arrest
                                        power. That's why when the Navy helps nab someone at sea; there's
                                        often a Coastie along to say the magic words.

                                        A friend was an Army CID investigator and I don't recall how he got
                                        his arrest power -- one trick was to swear folks in as Marshals
                                        as well as in Army CID. I'll ask him.





                                        --
                                        A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
                                        & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
                                        Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
                                        is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
                                      • Allan Bourdius
                                        I don t mean to be prolonging an OT discussion, but the United States Coast Guard is most definitely a military organization: 1) The web address of
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I don't mean to be prolonging an OT discussion, but the United States
                                          Coast Guard is most definitely a military organization:

                                          1) The web address of www.uscg.mil is an easy indicator.

                                          2) The USCG FAQ at http://www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html says right at
                                          the top: "The U.S. Coast Guard is one of five branches of the U.S.
                                          Armed Forces..."

                                          3) The Coast Guard falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
                                          like the other services, uses the same Manual for Courts Martial as
                                          the other services. (10 USC A.II.47)

                                          4) Coast Guardsmen are part of the all-service honor guard that is
                                          present at major state functions, such as Presidential funerals. If
                                          you look back at the casket team during President Reagan's funeral
                                          last year, there were 2 Soldiers, 2 Marines, 2 Airmen, 1 Sailor, and 1
                                          Coast Guardsman on the unit. (Sometimes there might have been 2
                                          Sailors and 1 Airman, but there was always a Coastie there to make the
                                          grand total of 8)

                                          5) I seem to remember that when I was sworn in to the USMCR as I
                                          joined the PLC OCS program that there were a bunch of future Coast
                                          Guard members in the same bunch as I - recruits for all 5 services,
                                          all taking the same oath...

                                          I could go on...

                                          Allan

                                          --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Coney <superc@v...> wrote:
                                          > Complete truth. They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland. I
                                          have
                                          > no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in
                                          Posse
                                          > Comitatas.
                                          >
                                          > Bill Smith wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                        • Kenneth Coney
                                          We are indeed off topic, but the Coast Guard is the second oldest service. (The US Watch or Federal Building Guards are the oldest.) The Coast Guard is
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            We are indeed off topic, but the Coast Guard is the second oldest
                                            service. (The US Watch or Federal Building Guards are the oldest.) The
                                            Coast Guard is classified as a civilian law enforcement agency in time
                                            of peace, no matter who rents them their web portal. For decades they
                                            came under Transportation as did the Merchant Marine (which also comes
                                            under Navy control in time of declared war). These days the Coast Guard
                                            is normally a branch of Homeland Security. In time of declared war,
                                            then they become part of the Navy, but they retain their powers of
                                            arrest. (No Posse Commitatus issue as neither the Coast Guard nor the
                                            Navy are in that statute.)


                                            Allan Bourdius wrote:

                                            >I don't mean to be prolonging an OT discussion, but the United States
                                            >Coast Guard is most definitely a military organization:
                                            >
                                            >1) The web address of www.uscg.mil is an easy indicator.
                                            >
                                            >2) The USCG FAQ at http://www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html says right at
                                            >the top: "The U.S. Coast Guard is one of five branches of the U.S.
                                            >Armed Forces..."
                                            >
                                            >3) The Coast Guard falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
                                            >like the other services, uses the same Manual for Courts Martial as
                                            >the other services. (10 USC A.II.47)
                                            >
                                            >4) Coast Guardsmen are part of the all-service honor guard that is
                                            >present at major state functions, such as Presidential funerals. If
                                            >you look back at the casket team during President Reagan's funeral
                                            >last year, there were 2 Soldiers, 2 Marines, 2 Airmen, 1 Sailor, and 1
                                            >Coast Guardsman on the unit. (Sometimes there might have been 2
                                            >Sailors and 1 Airman, but there was always a Coastie there to make the
                                            >grand total of 8)
                                            >
                                            >5) I seem to remember that when I was sworn in to the USMCR as I
                                            >joined the PLC OCS program that there were a bunch of future Coast
                                            >Guard members in the same bunch as I - recruits for all 5 services,
                                            >all taking the same oath...
                                            >
                                            >I could go on...
                                            >
                                            >Allan
                                            >
                                            >--- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Coney <superc@v...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >>Complete truth. They are a civilian LE agency under Homeland. I
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >have
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >>no idea why someone would presume they were somehow included in
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >Posse
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >>Comitatas.
                                            >>
                                            >>Bill Smith wrote:
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>>Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • paul rosa
                                            Regarding the New Orleans telecom situation, last night I was watching a BBC News segment about the situation. They filmed a large contingent of military
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Sep 8, 2005
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Regarding the New Orleans telecom situation, last night I was watching a
                                              BBC News segment about the situation. They filmed a large contingent of
                                              military forces and police SWAT teams that were about to launch a search
                                              and destroy mission in a ppublic housing complex there, then went along
                                              with them as they moved door-to-door. The reason for the mission?
                                              Techicians were trying to get a Sprint cell site at that locale back in
                                              service. Every time they would try to climb the tower, snipers would
                                              open fire. So the mission was to take out the snipers because
                                              restoration of communications was of extraordinary importance. This
                                              huge show of force makes the modest security by Bell South to protect
                                              the fuel for its generators look pretty tame.

                                              Paul Rosa
                                              Harpers Ferry, WV

                                              Bill Smith wrote:

                                              >Isn't the Coast Guard considered NOT a military organization?
                                              >
                                              >Kenneth Coney <superc@...> wrote:The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does *NOT* in any way prohibit the
                                              >use of the Navy or the Marines for law enforcement, nor does it mention
                                              >the Coast Guard. Even the prohibitions against the usage of the Army or
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >__________________________________________________
                                              >Do You Yahoo!?
                                              >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                              >http://mail.yahoo.com
                                              >
                                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • Blake Bowers
                                              In order to have state arrest authority, investigators and flight leaders in the Air Force were often sworn in as State Law Enforcement. At times, the on duty
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Sep 8, 2005
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In order to have state arrest authority, investigators and flight leaders
                                                in the Air Force were often sworn in as State Law Enforcement.

                                                At times, the on duty investigator would have to be called in,
                                                just to say the magic words after hours.


                                                > A friend was an Army CID investigator and I don't recall how he got
                                                > his arrest power -- one trick was to swear folks in as Marshals
                                                > as well as in Army CID. I'll ask him.
                                                >
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.