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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.