OK. So, it appears at first glance that the Army did not cross the line in the manner in which they engaged in the Samson, Alabama scenario where a mass-murderer was on the loose.
But the issue such a thing brings to the forefront of our thinking is of vital importance. Take a look at this thought-provoking article that delves into the issue of the military being used in a law enforcement roll: 'Why It Matters that the Army was on the Streets of Samson, Alabama.'
The mere signal that such a presence sends, even if the motive was pure, is not what we as a nation embrace.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I find it interesting that the facts of who called whom, and who initiated this illegal action seems to change daily.
From the transcript of an interview by Alex Jones on March 11, 2009:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=92444.0
Lt Col Scott Wile, the Provost Marshall at Ft Rucker, had this to say:
"The incident took place and all of the local law enforcement from the state of Alabama responded. It happened in several different cities. It was a very ugly situation. And it was going to be a long, drawn out situation. So, here, in southern Alabama, we have mutual aid agreements with all of our local surrounding communities where they support us when we need help. We support them. We’ve had several natural disasters in the past such as a hurricane and a tornado. And we support each other in times of need. So, when this happened, we called down to one of the local police departments and offered our assistance. And they said, “Absolutely. We could use the military police.” So we went down. And all we did was provide a support role where we went…we took 20 MPs down there. The local law enforcement and the state law enforcement were establishing a cordon and taking care of the area. So we just provided support, went in. And allowed those…the state and local law enforcement folks to go and take a knee and drink water, go and get some food, just rest for a little while. We took their posts for them. And then when they came back, we moved on to other places to see where we could assist."
It sounds to me that if enough people say "I did it", confusion will reign and no one will have to take responsibility.
The Lt Col, by his own words, is the person responsible for this illegal action. By his own words, there was not a time lapse, that the chief of police thought about it and the called him back.
It is so obvious that they are scrambling to CYOA.
Bob
III
CYOA seems to be the mode of operation in ALL of government these days!
If it is not legal for military troops used in this manner, can they be arrested?
That issue, unfortunately, has become very complicated. For one, we don't enforce many of our laws that are on the books.
For example, the U.S. Code specifically states that it is a felony to 'aid and abet' an illegal alien. Yet cities, states, businesses, and politicians regularly do exactly that.
In this particular case, if there was any infringement of the law, it would seem to be on the part of the commanding officer in charge, and not the individual troops themselves.
But, frankly, I doubt anything will come of it...
The insidious danger here is subtle but real. Law enforcement, military,and government at all levels would rather violate the constitution and commit crimes than allow citizens to witness and draw conclusions from a sheriff deputizing local men to aid in maintaining order and administering services in the pursuit of keeping and/or restoring the peace.
The police chief had the ability and option to call on the county sheriff. The sheriff could have deputized anyone, from cop to citizen to see this event to its conclusion. All of which would have been legal. Not only legal but steeped in tradition.
However this wasn't done. Instead, men were called who are full time on the government payroll and who carry and display the trappings of governmentally bestowed authority. Even though the authority to do so doesn't exist either for the commanders to bestow on their men or for their men to wield at orders from their commanders.
This was done despite the fact that the county sheriff has the authority bestow upon any temporarily deputized person to act in his behalf as an arm of the law.
Ok, since we now see there were legal avenues available, but ignored by people who could not possibly not have known, what does that tell us?
Simple. Very simple. It tells us that they will do anything they think they can get away with to prevent the citizenry from understanding that they are the legitimate arbiters of the law, that they are the repository of reserve strength to be called upon in times of crisis, and that they are the ones to be trusted with the power to provide protection for themselves and others.
It tells us that the powers that think they be, are deathly afraid of the people discovering their rightful power and rights and starting to think they are "somebody". "Why, Hell, the next thing you know, they'll want to be free. We can't allow that shit."
That's what it tells us. This was not a mistake of procedure made by servants of pure heart. This was and is a result of the pervasive beilief in some quarters that freedom is too precious to waste on the citizen. This was the result of that belief in keeping him in the dark. Sadly, this dynamic has become so ingrained in the abuser and abused alike that the participants may not even be aware of its genesis and driving force.
Post a Comment