It was very relevant to our response time on 9/11......
2006-09-06 20:56:28 · 9 answers · asked by frogspeaceflower 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Fathead you amuse me.
2006-09-06 21:05:47 · update #1
I was wondering how long it would take to gather the congress for an emergency session.......I do see your point
2006-09-06 21:18:11 · update #2
I will re-read that and get back to you. I studied law for 5 years and got out of it in time. Its a dirty business. I have a good idea where you are going with this and i like it. Oh and BTW people on the ground filmed two F-14s flying over NYC after the first tower was hit. This is indirect contradiction to the official statement that the FAA did not notify the military what was going on. Plus we have satellites that can read a license plate on a car from space you mean to tell me that no one saw a 110 story building get rammed by a jumbo jet? Yeah ok, whatever...
2006-09-06 21:06:08 · answer #1 · answered by metalsoft@sbcglobal.net 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Have not read all of it but the part that I do know restricts the use of Federal troops from performing civilian law enforcement duties. This is why they use National Guard troops (Because they are considered State troops) to work in the airports and places like that. The Army reserves are considered federal so when deployed stateside are only able to perform duties on Federal ground such as Army posts and maybe some of the Wash. D.C. stuff.
2006-09-07 04:03:34 · answer #2 · answered by M T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Posse Comitatus. 18 USC § 1385 and 10 USC § 371 et seq.
{INSERT} GPD818 (below) has the quote of the relevant sections.
The point is that it contains exceptions, as authorized by law, by Congress. Including the 1973 War Powers Act. 50 USC § 1544.
2006-09-07 03:58:47 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.
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; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
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.
18 U.S.C. 1385
Sec. 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.
Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)
YOU MEAN THIS ONE? Why yes, I have read it.
2006-09-07 04:03:13 · answer #4 · answered by HBPD 126 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
how was it relevant? that norad stood down and didnt even follow standard procedure to intercept a hijacked plane for over an hour while they were flying around the countryside? thats bs if its ur point ....either way i dont see the relevence....
now, with all the support for anti-terrorism and anti-illegal people are practically begging for full martial law and military policing our streets and neiborhoods.... most people dont understand it and gladly will submit to it thinking its "our boys" here to protect us ... as they are routinely searched and checked for papers and have their neiborhoods taken over by "drills" and weapons confiscated .... 9/11 started it all ... this is how i see it .... 9/11 started a war alright ... a war on the liberties and rights of the american people. ... posse comitadus will cease to exist altogether in the event of another so-called "terrorist" attack.
2006-09-07 04:01:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You ******.g piece of sh.it. There are no terrorists. Do not try & threaten that America will eliminate part of the World. Such a stupid statement to make. Oh yous have weapons that we dont even know about. Trust me America will end up a third world country. It is filth like you who has the world the way it is. If there is such thing as terrorists then America is truly *******. And it is not just muslims who hate america. Most of the world does & I dont agree with it as hate achieves nothing but if they can get rid of filth like you so be it. 9/11 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, take a breather, ah ah ah ah ha ha ha ha
2006-09-07 05:03:58 · answer #6 · answered by Bosco 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Obviously Bush has not read it. His advisers (Rove) I'm sure have read it and work hard to circumvent it.
2006-09-07 04:03:10 · answer #7 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I haven't. Interesting question though. 2 points.
2006-09-07 04:02:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hmm, have you? You misspelled it so I have my doubts.
2006-09-07 04:01:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋