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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Sep 7 6:43 AM
    • 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 2 of 22 , Sep 7 11:57 AM
      • 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 3 of 22 , Sep 7 12:16 PM
        • 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 4 of 22 , Sep 7 12:27 PM
          • 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 5 of 22 , Sep 7 1:13 PM
            • 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 6 of 22 , Sep 7 2:00 PM
              • 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 7 of 22 , Sep 7 2:32 PM
                • 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 8 of 22 , Sep 7 5:39 PM
                  • 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 9 of 22 , Sep 7 7:40 PM
                    • 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 10 of 22 , Sep 7 9:31 PM
                      • 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 11 of 22 , Sep 8 5:50 AM
                        • 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 12 of 22 , Sep 8 6:21 AM
                          • 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.