US Army deployed to Samson, Alabama after mass shooting

[Guest justme]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29759776/

First, apologies if this has already been posted somewhere.

SAMSON, Ala. - The Army said Wednesday it opened an inquiry into whether federal laws were broken when nearly two dozen soldiers were sent to a south Alabama town after 11 people died in a shooting spree last week.

State officials said the deployment of 22 military police officers and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker was requested neither by Republican Gov. Bob Riley nor the White House, which typically is required by law for soldiers to operate on U.S. soil.

Col. Michael J. Negard of the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., said officials are trying to determine who ordered the soldiers to Samson, who requested them, why they were sent and what they did there.

"In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also consider whether law, regulation and policy were followed," he said. He declined further comment.

Former Samson resident Michael McLendon, 28, fatally shot nine victims in the town and killed a 10th in a neighboring county. The March 10 spree ended when McLendon killed himself, and the soldiers arrived in the hours after.

Investigators said McLendon was despondent over his inability to hold a job and his failure to become a Marine or a police officer.Riley isn't concerned whether the military overstepped its bounds, said Press Secretary Jeff Emerson.

"From what I understand it was a few folks who came to direct traffic or help where they could," Emerson said. "If it had been more than what it was there might be a reason for concern, but these folks just came to see if they could help and left." The White House press office did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Reporters and curious citizens poured into the town of 2,000 after the slayings, and city officials said soldiers directed traffic. The town is near the Florida state line about 35 miles from Fort Rucker, the Army's main helicopter training base.

Now for my comments:

SO, I wrote my rep about the use of the Army in an American town. I would ask for others to do the same, and write your representatives and demand an explanation for this event and just give them an earful.

I would also ask you to give them an earful about Holder and his plan to restrict our right to bear arms--and to restrict it in the name of Mexico...and I would ask you to ask your friends to also write their reps and to have them to do the same with their friends and see if a real earful can't be given to this Congress about the unConstitutional plans by this administration to sell us out.

[TGO David]

The report of them being deployed had been posted but this is the first time I've seen a posting here about the internal inquiry. Interesting.

[Guest slim]

I have also read, alledgedly by someone living there, the Army answered 911 calls as well as responding to those!

That seems like martial law!

[Kegger]

The Army can operate inside US borders as long as it isn't in an offensive posture.

Posse Comitatus prevents us from doing so. But a governor can mobilize soldiers to help in situations like this, when there aren't enough local police to do the basic stuff, like direct traffic, respond to 911 calls, and issue citations.

What do you think happened in New Orleans after Katrina? Thousands of soldiers were sent to fill in for police, firefighters, and EMS that evacuated and didn't come back. You didn't whine about that now, did you?

[Guest Linoge]

The problem, Kegger, is that the Governor did not mobilize these troops. The President did not. And Congress most assuredly did not.

Not even the Army is "sure" who ordered these troops into the town... but, at this point, with all of the attention this event is receiving, you can be damned sure that whoever did is about to have a very bad week.

These two events are entirely different, but thanks for trying.

[Guest justme]

The Army can operate inside US borders as long as it isn't in an offensive posture.

Posse Comitatus prevents us from doing so. But a governor can mobilize soldiers to help in situations like this, when there aren't enough local police to do the basic stuff, like direct traffic, respond to 911 calls, and issue citations.

What do you think happened in New Orleans after Katrina? Thousands of soldiers were sent to fill in for police, firefighters, and EMS that evacuated and didn't come back. You didn't whine about that now, did you?

The US Army is not under control of any governor. The national guard however is. Now as for the national guard on the streets of New Orleans after Katrina--if you were watching carefully. they were going around confiscating arms from the citizens in the area along with the police..

[Guest 2HOW]

Under a joint pact the army MPs were called in by the chief of police to help in traffic and to preserve the crime scene. Even tho they have an agreement with the base they broke 3 federal laws by doing so.

The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law… Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code… David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well. “Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com…

The mystery over who ordered U.S. Army forces to patrol the streets of the south Alabama town where 11 people were killed in a shooting spree last week has been solved. WND confirmed troops from nearby Ft. Rucker provided limited assistance after a request from the police chief of Samson, Ala…"Under the authority of a mutual aid agreement which Fort Rutgers has with local law enforcement community in Samson, Alabama, the Samson city police chief requested support from military police after the shooting," Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, an Air Force officer working for the Department of Defense press office, told WND in a telephone interview

[Guest justme]

Under a joint pact the army MPs were called in by the chief of police to help in traffic and to preserve the crime scene. Even tho they have an agreement with the base they broke 3 federal laws by doing so.

The police chief has no authority to call in the Army--none whatsoever. Only Congress or the President can authorize the armed forces to carry out law enforcement powers, and only then under a declaration of martial law.

As for breaking laws by bring the army to the streets of an American town they did indeed and whoever called them in should be jailed, and that includes those who participated in this little fiasco, including the Provost Marshal, the soldiers involved, and the person(s) who called them in, chief, sheriff, mayor, or whoever.

Title 18 chapter 67 § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[poak]

The police chief has no authority to call in the Army--none whatsoever. Only Congress or the President can authorize the armed forces to carry out law enforcement powers, and only then under a declaration of martial law.

As for breaking laws by bring the army to the streets of an American town they did indeed and whoever called them in should be jailed, and that includes those who participated in this little fiasco, including the Provost Marshal, the soldiers involved, and the person(s) who called them in, chief, sheriff, mayor, or whoever.

Title 18 chapter 67 § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Jail the soldiers? Must be some good crack you're smoking.

They were likely 18-20yr olds who followed orders.

[creeky]

Jail the soldiers? Must be some good crack you're smoking.

They were likely 18-20yr olds who followed orders.

Agreed... you don't have to see a written copy of from the Governor stating the order to make it lawful to do what you are told. The higeer ups are the ones that should be called on the carpet.

Leave the little guys alone.

[memphismason]

The Army can operate inside US borders as long as it isn't in an offensive posture.

Posse Comitatus prevents us from doing so. But a governor can mobilize soldiers to help in situations like this, when there aren't enough local police to do the basic stuff, like direct traffic, respond to 911 calls, and issue citations.

What do you think happened in New Orleans after Katrina? Thousands of soldiers were sent to fill in for police, firefighters, and EMS that evacuated and didn't come back. You didn't whine about that now, did you?

Your right I aint a whiner. I did however write numerous letters to every person elected to represent "my best interests", voiceing my concern and urged them to take the proper steps needed to ensure this would never happen again on United States soil.

Edited March 19, 2009 by memphismason

[Guest justme]

Jail the soldiers? Must be some good crack you're smoking.

They were likely 18-20yr olds who followed orders.

And as soldiers they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

As soldiers, it is their duty to recognize an unConstitutional and unlawful order and refuse to obey it....they committed a crime by being in that city conducting law enforcement and I would hope they are prosecuted, or at the very least made to understand that this can never happen again.

Following orders is not an excuse, and cannot be used as a defense to crimes they commit--or so President Bush told the Iraqis just as we invaded in 2003...It should apply no less to US troops who are actually supposed to know that they are not allowed to conduct domestic law enforcement activities or police the American population absent a declaration of martial law. They could have said we refuse to obey this order...

[R1100R]

And as soldiers they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

As soldiers, it is their duty to recognize an unConstitutional and unlawful order and refuse to obey it....they committed a crime by being in that city conducting law enforcement and I would hope they are prosecuted, or at the very least made to understand that this can never happen again.

Following orders is not an excuse, and cannot be used as a defense to crimes they commit--or so President Bush told the Iraqis just as we invaded in 2003...It should apply no less to US troops who are actually supposed to know that they are not allowed to conduct domestic law enforcement activities or police the American population absent a declaration of martial law. They could have said we refuse to obey this order...

I don't see a military icon for service under your avatar. I might

be wrong but what in the hell would you know about defending the Constitution. It's like flying the old USSR colors as you avatar.

( By all means your right to) A right given to you under the Constitution.

When I flew MEDEVAC, you didn't hear anybody complaining about flying their premature babies or the seriously injured from rural areasor just to better hospitals for treatment. No one complained about

the numerous times I left the Fort to conduct MEDEVAC flights which came under safety and traffic in most states.

Edited March 19, 2009 by R1100R

[Punisher84]

I don't see a military icon for service under your avatar. I might

be wrong but what in the hell would you know about defending the Constitution. It's like flying the old USSR colors as you avatar.

( By all means your right to) A right given to you under the Constitution.

When I flew MEDEVAC, you didn't hear anybody complaining about flying their premature babies or the seriously injured from rural areasor just to better hospitals for treatment. No one complained about

the numerous times I left the Fort to conduct MEDEVAC flights which came under safety and traffic in most states.

Damn right. I don't agree with what they did, but these are kids following orders in this case. This wasn't a "Go take their guns and kill anyone who gets in your way" type order. In that case I'd say they should know better and refuse to obey an illegal order, but Hell man I wouldn't have known any better when I was 18 and in service.

This is where the commanders need to be brought up, not some 19 year old kid from Iowa.

[Guest justme]

Agreed... you don't have to see a written copy of from the Governor stating the order to make it lawful to do what you are told. The higeer ups are the ones that should be called on the carpet.

Leave the little guys alone.

Again, the governor cannot bring in the Army. AFAIK, only on authorization of the President can the regular Army be brought in, and even then it has to be under a declaration of martial law, or through an order from Congress. There are strict reasons which outline as to why the Army can deploy to an American city and conduct law enforcement, and a simple shooting in a small town is insufficient to warrant their deployment. Second, The governor does not have any control over the regular Army, and cannot bring them in. Governors only have control over their respective state national guard units.

If the little guys are "just following orders" and they knew, or should have known that those orders were unlawful, then they could have and should have refused the order. We could take "they were just following orders" to enormous lengths--the Nazis for example, and the SS guards at the death camps were "just following orders" when they exterminated millions of Jews, the Iraqis were "just following orders" when they dispersed and became insurgents, The national guard "was just following orders" when they assisted in the confiscation of citizen firearms in New Orleans after Katrina....and they could theoretically "just follow orders" if the administration should suddenly decide that we don't need our arms and order their confiscation...

SO "they were just following orders" can be used to cover up a whole host of crimes. BUT I do understand what you are saying. My point is--they had the opportunity to refuse to obey the order and chose not to do so. They are required to distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders...they are damned if they refuse to obey an unlawful order and they are damned if they do obey one...while the individual soldier involved may not deserve jail time--a simple, direct and blunt point should be made to them through demotion, or other non judicial punishment duties..but the Provost marshal, and their commanding officers most certainly should be jailed, as should the person who asked for them.

I understand what you are saying--I really do, but they committed a crime and like it or not, the individual soldier was a party to it just as much as the officers and the others involved in their deployment.

[poak]

I don't see a military icon for service under your avatar. I might

be wrong but what in the hell would you know about defending the Constitution.

QFT

This is where the commanders need to be brought up, not some 19 year old kid from Iowa.

PRECISELY!

Condemning young soldiers (who joined up to voluntarily serve their community and their nation) to the brig and dishonorable discharges due to their following an order of helping out with traffic detail, solely because it gave you paranoid delusions and loose stools, is idiotic.

[Punisher84]

loose stools,.

I don't understand what the condition of your bar furniture has to do with this, but I agree with everything else.

[Guest justme]

I don't see a military icon for service under your avatar. I might

be wrong but what in the hell would you know about defending the Constitution. It's like flying the old USSR colors as you avatar.

( By all means your right to) A right given to you under the Constitution.

When I flew MEDEVAC, you didn't hear anybody complaining about flying their premature babies or the seriously injured from rural areasor just to better hospitals for treatment. No one complained about

the numerous times I left the Fort to conduct MEDEVAC flights which came under safety and traffic in most states.

Whether I did or did not serve is no ones business but mine and God's. But to sit by and question my patriotism or the love of my country and to question whether I do or do not understand the cost associated with defending the Constitution based only on the fact that I don't think our military should be conducting local law enforcement, and that those who have done so should be held to account for it is absolutely asinine. As for my avatar--I chose that particular avatar because it now seems to represent everything this administration holds dear--Communism and the Party. Damn man can't you see this country has went into the and the politicians are just helping to foul it up more every day by selling out our nation to please foreign powers like Mexico? Our troops have to now serve under the auspices of the "un" in an effort to give American military policy a form of legitimacy, because neither the President, nor the Congress has had the backbone to really act since 1944 when they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Now we have to sit by and educate our enemies so that they can attack us while we stand idly by and allow our southern border to be overrun by drug runners and people who hate us, and the ONLY response that this government can give is--ooops, sorry, lets ban those "assault weapons" and help those poor Mexicans out, because their "rights" are more valuable than ours.. If you can't see that my avatar is a political statement about the state of our country right now, then I really don't know what to say.

Edited March 19, 2009 by justme

[Guest justme]

QFT

PRECISELY!

Condemning young soldiers (who joined up to voluntarily serve their community and their nation) to the brig and dishonorable discharges due to their following an order of helping out with traffic detail, solely because it gave you paranoid delusions and loose stools, is idiotic.

fine, don't discharge them, or confine them--but make them understand that they committed a crime, and make them understand that this can not happen again. The officers most certainly need to be jailed, as does the person who asked them to come.

As for "paranoid delusions or loose stools" I am neither paranoid nor did this give me loose stools. BUT if you think for a second that the government is not watching to see how the people respond to this--you're sadly mistaken.

remember--the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Edited March 19, 2009 by justme

[Punisher84]

Whether I did or did not serve is no ones business but mine and God's. If you can't see that my avatar is a political statement then all you want to do is find a reason to whine when there isn't one.

You're right. It is your business, but you can't expect people who have been there and done that to respect your opinion if you have not.

I think you make a valid point with your argument, but R1100R isn't whining he's stating his side of the argument same as you.

[memphismason]

I don't see a military icon for service under your avatar. I might

be wrong but what in the hell would you know about defending the Constitution.

A person doesn't have to have served this country in the armed forces to know about defending the Constitution.

It is the duty of every good citizen of the U.S.A. to know what is contained in the Constitution and be willing to stand up for the rights contained therein.

No offense intended to any vet or current military personel, I just don't like someone thinking that I or anyone, that has not served in the military, doesn't not have a right to an opinion on matters concerning the defense of what this country is founded on.

An American is an American is an American. It takes all of us to make this complete. Super citizens are not created based on what profession we each decide to take up. We rely on each other to make this country great.

[memphismason]

but you can't expect people who have been there and done that to respect your opinion if you have not.

I do.

When I give respect I expect the same in return.

[Punisher84]

I do.

When I give respect I expect the same in return.

Let me put it this way. I have respect for his opinion in general. My point is if you don't have experience in a field you're opinion is not going to be as valid. That's just reality.

I don't walk into the OR at work and tell them how to make incisions and I wouldn't want a Dr. coming in and telling me how to run my security operations.

Not that we may not have valid opinions, but experience is something that cannot be equaled by a book or a story told to you.

I think Justme has a valid point and his heart is certainly in the right place, but I don't think R1100R is out of line for questioning his experience in military operations.

[poak]

A person doesn't have to have served this country in the armed forces to know about defending the Constitution.

Agreed. However, after he made a statement that the soldiers out there needed to be locked up, his ignorance to military operations and chain of command was free to be called into question.

[Guest justme]

Agreed. However, after he made a statement that the soldiers out there needed to be locked up, his ignorance to military operations and chain of command was free to be called into question.

I did call for the soldiers to be punished for their actions yes--and I fully stand behind that if what they did is a violation of the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend.

I also fully understand the chain of command, BUT the lower soldiers are responsible for their own actions. Any soldier who shoots an unarmed and shackled detainee and then claims "I was just following orders" is guilty of a crime--even if an officer gave the command to fire, the soldier is still guilty.

I am far from ignorant about this. You can't use "I'm just following orders" to justify an act that is un Constitutional and illegal under an act that was passed in 1878. As a soldier it is their job to not just be a mindless robot obeyer who follows every order issued to them without question, irrespective of whether the order is lawful or not.

Maybe I'm wrong-maybe the individual soldier bears no responsibility....they certainly need investigated to determine this. I hope against hope that this deployment and others which were planned which were similar to this are not test run to see how the people will react to the Army on our streets. One planned, but since rescinded large scale deployment in Iowa by the Iowa national guard where they would have done a "cordon and search" while they look for a "arms dealer" where they searched house to house in a neighborhood of "willing citizen actors", and now the deployment of the US Army to Alabama for a simple shooting. Maybe I'm too cynical and distrusting...

read my signature and you will understand.

Edited March 19, 2009 by justme