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

Re: [coldwarcomms] any info on New Orleans Bell South Bldg...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
      --- 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 2 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
        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 3 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
          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 4 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
            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 5 of 22 , Sep 6, 2005
              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 6 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                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 7 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                  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 8 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                    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 9 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                      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 10 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                        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 11 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                          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 12 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                            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 13 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                              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 14 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                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 15 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                  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 16 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                    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 17 of 22 , Sep 7, 2005
                                      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 18 of 22 , Sep 8, 2005
                                        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 19 of 22 , Sep 8, 2005
                                          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.