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

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

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