Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terroris

[Jamie6.5]

Nice attempt at emotional theater there, but there is a huge difference between raiding a compound under the scrutiny of the public eye and illegally and indefinitely detaining citizens with no charges filed. The fact that the Davidians chose to go down in a blaze of glory instead of cooperationg and getting their dat in court is not the real issue. To try and compare the two is not only absurd but at best is a clear indication of rationalization and bias. It is intellectual dishonesty at it's highest.

Sorry PP but apparently you aren't as familiar with the Constitution or the facts.
Janet and Bill used active duty military personnel and equipment to attack the Branch Davidian complex. The General at the Army base down the road in Texas argued vehemently against the AG's people and the ATF "drafting" his equipment and personnel. To no avail.
The standing army is NEVER to be used against American citizens. The WTO fiasco is another example of AG and executive abuse.
Then, the same admin refused to assassinate OBL because the lawyers on staff told Bill it would be equated with murder. At least in the court of popular world opinion. WTF is up with that?

We went over this "which is worse" scenario elswhere, but you don't seem to get it when there is a dem admin playing the part of perpetrator.

 

[cameronhu]

Sorry PP but apparently you aren't as familiar with the Constitution or the facts.
.....

The standing army is NEVER to be used against American citizens...

I didn't study a lot of constitutional law, but to the best of my knowledge, that is not true. The president _can_ direct the military to engage domestically in law enforcement. On a side note, if he's in a pinch, he can also call in mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater) to secure the peace, as was the case in New Orleans post Katrina.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The National Guard has/may be emplyed during times of riot for the purpose of restoring the peace. However the NG is, for all intents and purposes, the state militia. Under orders of the governor.

What Reno and Clinton and Foster did was violate:

The

Posse Comitatus

Act of 1878​

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress;

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

Bradley Fighting Vehicles, their drivers and other military personnel, weapons and equipment were used in the Waco siege for the purpose of seizing/arresting a group of people that, at the time of their arrest, posed no threat to the surrounding populace.
Pure and simple, the admin broke the law.

And Americans died.

Curiously, Vincent Foster was writing his account of what took place, who said/did what etc. when he died under mysterious circumstances in a National Park.
The conclusion the park personnel came to was that he committed suicide. Hole in his head, gun in his hand, at his side.
His death was never investigated by any properly equipped forensic pathology law enforcement team(s).

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[cameronhu]

Pure and simple, the admin broke the law.

No. The act was waived. As it was waived by Reagan in '87 to deal with a prison riot in Atlanta.

 

[Jamie6.5]

No. The act was waived. As it was waived by Reagan in '87 to deal with a prison riot in Atlanta.

Semantics. Reagan was chastised for it by the press, as well as by members of congress. The press and the dem congress gave Bill and Janet a pass. I love it when liberals discuss Waco, and don't even realize what crimes were committed because they believed the mainstream press' account.

except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

Neither consulted Congress. Shame on both!
But I would contend that a prison riot, perpetrated by a group of convicted violent felons is a little more serious than a group of religious fanatics that weren't convicted in any court, of any crime. And were killed for practicing their beliefs. Were they wrong? Yup. Should they have been more pragmatic? Definitely. But I don't think the death penalty should have been applied without the application of justice first.

And IIRC the prison was a federal facility, and that is why the NG wasn't used. Federal prison->Federal problem.

Want to discuss the use of special forces used in Seattle during the WTO riots?
The NG should have been used as a last resort in both of these cases. Under the supervision of the respective state's AGs

 

[cameronhu]

Semantics. Reagan was chastised for it by the press, as well as by members of congress. The press and the dem congress gave Bill and Janet a pass. I love it when liberals discuss Waco, and don't even realize what crimes were committed because they believed the mainstream press' account.

Law is all about semantics. Out of curiosity, what do you consider mainstream press? Books, newspapers, Domestic Cable, International news?

Neither consulted Congress. Shame on both!

Agreed.

But I would contend that a prison riot, perpetrated by a group of convicted violent felons is a little more serious than a group of religious fanatics that weren't convicted in any court, of any crime.

As Penguin mentioned, they wouldn't come to court.

And were killed for practicing their beliefs.

IMHO they were killed because their leader was by all accounts a first class nut-job. It's tragic. But if it quacks like a duck...

Bottom line, both Reagan and Clinton waived Posse Comitatus. Bush II was trying to _revoke_ it. Not just waive it, _revoke_ it. If you have some free time, read this:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB249.pdf

I'm pretty politically neutral. I've voted both sides of the ticket for years. But from a rights perspective, what Bush and Cheney did/were doing was blasphemous. I'd rather worry about paying higher taxes any day of the week than worry about a President stripping away my rights to protect me from "terrorists."

 

[BillCh]

<snip>
No one has ANY proof that innocent Americans were spied upon.

No one. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that I believe it didn't happen. Bring some proof that anyone absolutely not connected with a terror plot had their privacy violated on a wiretap. I've looked, and can't find a single case. Same for "illegally detaining citizens without representation". Examples?

Umm...
Ya.
You could google a guy by the name of Brandon Mayfield. You won't have to go far for that example, he's from Portland, Oregon!
This one has to be true, I saw it on the TV.

They did a bunch of nasty stuff to him and his family. Even if he is a lawyer, that don't make it right.

"...Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge" and "...the mistaken arrest first sprang from an error by the FBI’s supercomputer..."

I do like what the head FBI dude in the case said. Although I do think it's a little creepy.

“The climate of fear of terror makes this a cautionary tale about
the way in which that fear can ensnare an innocent person in the
type of abuse to which Mr. Mayfield was subjected...”
​

For further reading, do a search of Northwestfirearms.com forums for "ASHTON LUNDEBY"
I haven't done comprehensive reshearch on this but I'll go out on a limb and offer this as example number two.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Thanks for the link. Good read, but it sounds to me like the author is the one that wants to abolish, or at least limit the PCA.

Section 332 gives the President the authority to use the militia of any state or the regular armed forces to enforce the laws of the United States or to suppress unlawful rebellion

So you are saying Waco was an unlawful rebellion? One that the Texas NG couldn't have handled, with the Texas AG's oversight?

The military does not routinely train soldiers to tread carefully where they might be infringing on a citizen’s constitutional rights.
Nor does the Army train soldiers to collect and protect evidence. Instead, it trains them to use force to destroy an opposing military unit. As one law review writer comments, “Soldiers are taught to violently and effectively destroy the enemy, and their training does not include sensitivity to constitutional limitations on search, seizure, and
the use of reasonable force

This is the situation that took place at Waco. With predictable results.

President George W. Bush established protection of the homeland as the most important mission for the military in the National Security
Strategy of 2002. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld lists homeland defense as the military’s highest priority in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Regardless of the importance of homeland defense to our national security, the focus of our military will continue to be on fighting and winning our nation’s wars overseas. To those in the Defense Department who are concerned about losing the focus on warfighting, the PCA serves as a comforting legal impediment preventing the military from being distracted from its focus on wars overseas.

This sounds like so much paranoia by the left, and legal wrangling ala' the ACLU. It doesn't read to me like an attempt by Bush to abolish the PCA. To begin with, enemy combatants on American soil would/should not be a civil matter, or a concern for LE alone. It is and should be termed an invasion by foreign fighters. The PCA is moot at that point, whether the fighters arrived with visas or not.
This is one area where the left likes to bring laws and the rights of citizens into the argument. Just because a visa holding visitor is here legally, doesn't mean they are entitled to Constitutional protections once they pick up a weapon with the intent to commit bodily harm. And, like in the case of 9/11 there is an obvious conspiracy to commit acts of war (terrorism), they need to be dealt with accordingly.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law. Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that
the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President’s obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in
time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.

Waco does not fit the definition of "war, insurrection, or other serious emergency" In order to do so the Branch dividians would have had to be a threat to the general populace of the country.
It should have been handled by the Texas NG at the very most.

From appendix I

Direct Active Use Test​

Did the military directly and actively participate in the law enforcement
activity?

Yes, at Waco they certainly did.

Transportation, furnishing
equipment, supplies, or
services, e.g., providing
medical care to prisoners is
“indirect use” and therefore
permitted. If, however, the
military takes a direct role,
such as operating equipment
or providing direct assistance,
the action is impermissible
unless covered by an
exception.

You believe Reno and Clinton had an exception based on the criteria discussed above?

I do not.
They broke the law and American citizens died as a result.
Not foreign enemy combatants.

 

[Monkeyman]

Umm...
Ya.
You could google a guy by the name of Brandon Mayfield. You won't have to go far for that example, he's from Portland, Oregon!
This one has to be true, I saw it on the TV.

They did a bunch of nasty stuff to him and his family. Even if he is a lawyer, that don't make it right.

"...Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge" and "...the mistaken arrest first sprang from an error by the FBI's supercomputer..."

I do like what the head FBI dude in the case said. Although I do think it's a little creepy.

"The climate of fear of terror makes this a cautionary tale about
the way in which that fear can ensnare an innocent person in the
type of abuse to which Mr. Mayfield was subjected..."
​

For further reading, do a search of Northwestfirearms.com forums for "ASHTON LUNDEBY"
I haven't done comprehensive reshearch on this but I'll go out on a limb and offer this as example number two.

You are absolutely right,Bill. Mayfield got jobbed by overzealous terrorist hunters. The government also reluctantly admitted they were wrong and apologized; were I Mr. Mayfield, that apology would in no way suffice.

At least they didn't send the tanks down to the mosque on Capitol Hwy.

As far as that Lundeby kid, I see your point, but I think his innocence or guilt is tbd. Even if he was guilty of sending those threats, the heavy-handedness of his treatment just further shows a government out of control.

 

[PDXGuy]

Curiously, Vincent Foster was writing his account of what took place, who said/did what etc. when he died under mysterious circumstances in a National Park.
The conclusion the park personnel came to was that he committed suicide. Hole in his head, gun in his hand, at his side.
His death was never investigated by any properly equipped forensic pathology law enforcement team(s).

Gee, I wonder why?

supposedly, he shot himself in the back of the head. It seemed his arm was very flexible.

 

[PDXGuy]

No. The act was waived. As it was waived by Reagan in '87 to deal with a prison riot in Atlanta.

So, any acts/laws can be waived whenever they feel like it? Is that why when the POTUS does it, it's not against the law?

 

[BillCh]

A hypothetical

Lets say you got a guard dog to help protect your family and home from bad guys.
The dog tends to bite your kids and your wife.

If it were me and my dog it would be simple.
I'd put the dog down.

By the way, lets say the dogs name was Patriot Act.

 

[PDXGuy]

A hypothetical

Lets say you got a guard dog to help protect your family and home from bad guys.
The dog tends to bite your kids and your wife.

If it were me and my dog it would be simple.
I'd put the dog down.

By the way, lets say the dogs name was Patriot Act.

Good name for a dog...and say your dog Patriot Act gives birth to baby patriot acts (Patriot Act 2), and the baby grows up meaner...what to do?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The dog tends to bite your kids and your wife.

If it were me and my dog it would be simple.
I'd put the dog down.

Hmmm...it depends. How annoying is the wife and how ugly are the kids? I tend to like dogs way better than people.

 

[Stomper]

I hope its not because of the way dogs "shake hands" when they meet!


(Sorry, just had to lighten the mood a bit!! )

 

[cameronhu]

So, any acts/laws can be waived whenever they feel like it?

I don't think acts/laws have feelings. They're usually paper documents that are codified and distributed. There are a lot of these documents, and many of them are ambiguous, conflict or are considered by varying degrees of importance. Us humans very seldom agree on what these laws actually stipulate, so we argue about them, and if we really want to push the issue, we go to court and have trained professionals decide. If we don't agree with the outcome, we can go to a different court and try our luck again. We can do this until we run out of courts. This, in a nutshell, is the US legal system. It's modeled after the English legal system. Not a great system, but the best we humans have been able to devise and implement.

In general, people who have a simple moral code (e.g. see things in "black or white") have a much more difficult time accepting the flexibility inherent in the US legal system than those people with a complex moral code (e.g. those who see things in "shades of grey".) The former tend to be drawn to law enforcement, while the latter end up as lawyers and judges.

The particular law we've been discussing here has been in court frequently. The courts have found that in many cases, this law is in conflict with other laws. Precedents have been established in legal cases, that this law is not applicable in certain circumstances. One such circumstance is when it is waived by a president of the US.

It was this fact that I posted. Not an opinion, a fact.

My opinion is that this sucks - but that doesn't change the fact that according to the courts (i.e. the trained professionals) , neither Reagan nor Clinton broke the law.

It is also my opinion that no president in recent memory has done more to trample the rights of Joe citizen than GW Bush.

 

[Stomper]

+1 and amen!!

 

[CEF1959]

It is also my opinion that no president in recent memory has done more to trample the rights of Joe citizen than GW Bush.

Bringing this back to guns per the forum rules....

Let's remember that GWB was pretty good on Second Amendment rights. He was just really selective in the rights he thought were important. In that regard, he was like so many on the left who worship the First and Fourth Amendments but want to pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

But there are degrees of dangerousness, and I agree that GWB was one very very dangerous man in terms of eviscerating peoples' rights, because he had so much power to act on his dangerous inclinations. Unlike, say, the ACLU, which seems like a yappy little dog -- annoying and loud, but ultimately without any bite.

 

[Stomper]

HA... the ACLU has no bite... wanna bet? Not withstanding legitimate civil rights cases (on behalf of lefties), the ACLU has the police's hands tied from effectively combating gang-bangers, the ACLU has the police's hands tied from keeping those FILTHY BUMS off the exit ramps that make a HAZARDOUS mess where they drop their rubish, used needles, and other "efluvia" while they pick at the scabs on their forearms... and THAT is straight from my local Police Chief at a public neighborhood meeting. Those in the ACLU should be tried in the RICO statutes IMHO.... now back to firearms.

:bsflag:

 

[probasco]

washington county district David Wu who has twenty (20) staffers at the cost of $276,500 to help him with his duties, still cant read any of the bills he votes on. He freely admitted in a town hall meeting, "i cant read all the bills". why not?

this does not include his salary of $174,000

so with annual costs of $450,500, what does he do if he cant read a bill?
(he could afford a tutor to teach him to read or have it read to him)

its hard to believe after he has also spent $34,000 on 13 trips paid for with another $29,000 in trips approved.

why does he need to go to china to be a good representative of beaverton?
why does he need to go to san juan puerto rico on retreat on our exspense?
why doe he need to go to ft. lauderdale and harvard for health care conferences when they are available on line?