Tag Archives: Socialist

Law-and-Order Veterans ‘Smell A Rat’ at Fort Campbell

During more than four months of reporting on the Army’s misguided prosecution of Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin, I’ve had conversations with many people about the case. Recent interactions with two law-and-order veterans, both of whom will remain unidentified due to the fact they’re frequently involved in military justice cases, are worth sharing as both seem to “smell a rat” at Fort Campbell, Ky.

Socialist Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with the Army's prosecution of Maj. Christian "Kit" Martin, but he does seem to match the description one attorney had for the major's "ex-wife" accuser.

Socialist Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with the Army’s prosecution of Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin, but he does seem to match the description one attorney had for the major’s “ex-wife” accuser.

On Sept. 27, a well-respected and very-experienced man — and retired big-city homicide detective, to boot — contacted me after reading my article, Attorney Cites ‘Foul Smell in the Air’ Surrounding Effort to Link Army Officer to Multiple Murders Near Fort Campbell, published the same day. His comments appear below:

“It is incredulous that any law enforcement officer of any rank or assignment would not immediately jump on the opportunity to obtain video evidence. In this case, Major Martin had told deputies on scene that he had surveillance cameras and offered that video footage to them. Their refusal to accept the cameras suggests they had already made up their mind, evidently by virtue of what they had been told by the Army that Major Martin was the most likely culprit. It will probably just be a matter of time before the Christian County (Ky.) Sheriff’s Department realizes they have been played by the Army and comes forward with that information.”

Similarly, I received an email message from a military defense attorney with whom I occasionally chat. He asked if I had seen a piece published by Fox 17 in Nashville under the headline, Home, Cars of Fort Campbell Army Major Searched in Connection to Ky. Murders. I replied, telling him I had not seen it yet, and he came back with the comments below about Major Martin, his accuser/ex-“wife” and Maj. Jacob Bashore, the special victims prosecutor overseeing the Army’s prosecution of Major Martin:

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Bashore has (Martin) thrown into pretrial confinement and charged with murder just to muddy him up for the BS rape charge. And this ex-‘wife’ of his sounds like she is ‘batshit crazy,’ so I really hope Christian County is inquiring into her whereabouts on that night. But, if my intuition is on point, they probably won’t.

“On the off chance they do, I really hope the accuser/ex-‘wife’ did it for two reasons: (1) the case against Major Martin will most likely go away; and (2) the SVP would have some serious, serious egg on his face by going along with this woman who appears to have Crystal Magnum qualities. (Crystal Magnum went to jail for killing a man after she falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players of rape)Similar to my client, (name redacted), it would be a shining example of when law enforcement and prosecutors push to convict innocent men, sometimes innocent people are murdered.”

Coming from guys experienced in criminal investigations and high-stakes trials, the words above should cause every American to take pause. Why? Because men like Major Martin are being charged, tried and convicted far too often based almost solely on allegations made by vengeful women.

I encourage you to read more about Major Martin’s case and other cases of military justice run amok, and then stay tuned for updates as they surface.

UPDATE 12/7/2015 at 8:13 a.m. Central: A military judge continued the military trial date for Army Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin to sometime in March 2016, though no specific date has been set.

UPDATE 12/10/2015 at 11:09 a.m. Central: I’ve learned that Major Martin’s military trial date is set for March 14-18, 2016.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

You Can Send Kid to College, But You Can’t Make Him Think

After trying to learn more this weekend about the folks involved in the Million Student March student group, I learned you can send a kid to college, but you can’t make him think.

The decision to learn more about these young people came to me early Saturday morning while putting together my latest weekly recap which included a mention of a now-famous video of Neil Cavuto’s recent Fox Business interview of Keely Mullen, a young female college student identified as the national organizer of the Million Student March. Based upon her interview performance, I concluded she could not have been “the brains” behind the student group and decided to find out who else is at the heart of the misguided movement.

I started by visiting the ICANN WHOIS website where one can find details about who is responsible for a domain name or an IP address. There, I typed in the domain name for the group’s website (which I will not share because that’s my prerogative as owner of this website). Next, I filled in a Captcha blank and clicked on the “LOOKUP” button. Milliseconds later, I was shocked to find the personal information (i.e., phone number, physical address and email address) of the person who had registered the domain (which I will not share for the same reason).

After grabbing a few screenshots of the personal information, I concluded that I had two options:

1) I could expose this person’s personal information for all the world — including individuals previously unaware of the ICANN WHOIS website as well as potentially-violent folks on the opposite side of the philosophical arena — to see; or

2) I could use the person’s phone number to contact him and advise him to purchase private registration immediately. Why? So that he might avoid being found by the aforementioned “potentially-violent folks” who might wish to do him harm because they disagree with his political philosophy.

MY DECISION

Perhaps, because I can’t shake my fatherly instincts (I’ve put one son through college while a second is in college and a third is in the pipeline), I chose Option #2. Before exercising that option, however, I decided to learn more about this person and found the following:

• This person is co-founder with Mullen of the student activism group; he has given interviews to numerous national media outlets; and he has written at least one pro-communism article for at least one socialist online publication;

• This person is a third-year student at a very expensive and well-known university in New England;

• This person is under 21 years of age; and

• In addition to being a co-founder with Mullen, this person teamed up with her to create both the group’s website and the group’s Facebook page (links to which I will not share) as tools to call students nationwide to action.

THE CALL

I dialed this young person’s phone number at 12:48 p.m. Central Saturday afternoon, careful to block my own phone number from appearing in his Caller ID. After all, I didn’t know whether or not he was a genuine nut job or simply a misguided college student. After a technical glitch surfaced during the first attempt, he answered the second time I called and our brief conversation began.

I told him I was an investigative reporter who, while insisting on remaining anonymous, had something important to share with him. Having gotten his attention, I continued by telling him I wholeheartedly disagree with the philosophy embodied in the Million Student March, but felt obligated to offer some advice that might prevent him from enduring bodily harm.

My advice came out something like this: “You need to obtain private registration for your domain so that your personal information is not be visible on the ICANN WHOIS website for anyone, including those who might wish to do you harm, to find.”

I could sense he was paying very close attention while still a bit confused.

To emphasize how important it was for him to complete the recommended task, I reminded him I had reached him by dialing the very phone number listed on the ICANN WHOIS website. I hammered home my point by reading out loud to him the rest of his personal information I had found online, including his email address and a physical address — which I assume belongs to his parents or another relative in a state not too far away from where he attends school.

When he told me he had, indeed, received several threats as a result of his newfound notoriety, I recommended he move — at least until the situation settled down a bit — in case someone who didn’t have his best interests in mind had also found his personal information online.

Our short conversation ended with him thanking me. And that, I think, is the difference between a conservative and a socialist. A true conservative is willing to help safeguard the life of a young, impressionable and naive college student even if that student is pushing a political agenda that makes no sense whatsoever. But, per the headline above, the story does not end there.

When I finished writing my first version of this piece, it included his name, exact age, the university he attends and the domain for his group’s website, but it did not include his phone number or addresses — email and physical, that is. I planned to publish the piece Saturday afternoon after I was able to confirm this young person had taken my advice.

When I checked the ICANN WHOIS website Saturday at 2 p.m., the information was still visible on the site, indicating this young person had still not taken action to protect it.

When I checked later that night, nothing had changed.

Same thing Sunday morning, afternoon and evening. Same thing Monday morning.

It seems as if this young person — half of the “brain trust” responsible for launching a student movement purported to be national in scope — doesn’t care whether or not his personal information is available to be found by anyone familiar with the ICANN WHOIS website.

Fully realizing it won’t take anyone long to figure out who this kid is, I feel as if I’ve done as much as I can to give him a chance. And now you understand the inspiration for the headline, atop this article.

UPDATE 11/17/2015 at 8:55 a.m. Central: As of two minutes ago, he still hasn’t acted to protect his personal info. smh

UPDATE 11/19/2015 at 8:15 a.m. Central: He still hasn’t acted to protect his personal info.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Will Joe Biden Select ‘Indian’ Warren As Running Mate?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Biden-Warren

Will Joe Biden run, or will he not?  That is the question.

If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits.  Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away.  But who do the Democrats have to replace her?  Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength.  Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the “Black Lives Matter” storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.

On Aug. 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington.  And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat.  They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.

So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States?  Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell.  Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what.  In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever.  And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?

Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn and Harvard.  During that academic career, she gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.

Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican.  However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism.  In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.”

In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian.  In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage.  Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage.  And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.

Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Sen. Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.

And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden.  The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career.  He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University.  Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States.  During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.

After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Del.) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, on Dec. 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life.  His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington.  His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.

During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue.  He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years.  He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”

In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency.  However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.  His dishonesty quickly became a national issue, and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.

But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency.  They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience.  In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.

Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case.  All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.

But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate.  Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say.  To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate.  With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out.  Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice.  What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.

On May 30, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life.  His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer.  It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that Biden will enter the race.  But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign.  They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.

SEE ALSO: This 2006 video revealing how then-presidential candidate Biden feels about another group of Indians and this post about how he missed an opportunity for another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Flashback: Did Obama Recycle Words in 2008 Berlin Speech?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Seven years ago today, I shared news that seems more true today than it did in 2008. Please read and share the piece as it appears below with only minor modifications.

Caricature of Barack Obama by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Caricature of Barack Obama by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

After reading the transcript of the speech Barack Obama delivered in Berlin July 24, 2008, I concluded that at least two parts of his speech appear to have been “recycled” (i.e., they were used by others first).

In the seventh paragraph of the transcript, Obama said this:

“On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

Using the exact phrase, “how the world might be remade,” and without the words, “Barack” and “Obama,” a Google Advanced Search yielded only six results. Two of those results showed promise.

Cover: The Invisible Landscape: Mind, Hallucinogens, and the I Ching by Terence and Dennis McKenna

Cover: The Invisible Landscape: Mind, Hallucinogens, and the I Ching by Terence and Dennis McKenna

One result showed that the phrase had appeared 14 years ago in a book, The Invisible Landscape: Mind, Hallucinogens and the I Ching, by Terence and Dennis McKenna (Harper Collins 1994):

But there were two philosophies then among the revolutionaries on how the world might be remade. One path, endorsed by the political activists, advocated a traditional Western strategy: seizing political power and using that vantage to ….

I suspect Obama and his speech writers relied upon the above-named book for speech content for several reasons:

• No one can doubt that Obama is a revolutionary who sees a landscape most Americans do not;

• Obama wrote in one of his books that he had experience with a multitude of illegal drugs, some of which must have been of the hallucinogenic variety; and

• Having drawn so much criticism for his relationships — or lack thereof — with Islam and Christianity, Obama must have found comfort in a book that reflected the teachings of I Ching, one of the fundamental books of Confucianism.

Eleven paragraphs later in his Berlin speech, Obama said:

“While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.”

Through a second Google Advanced Search, I found the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) had used the phrase, “…we share a common destiny,” as part of her 1976 Democratic Convention Keynote Address — “Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?” — in New York City:

“Let there be no illusions about the difficulty of forming this kind of a national community. It’s tough, difficult, not easy. But a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny.

Over the years, I’ve found that politicians who use phrases like “…we share a common destiny” tend to be the same ones determined to foist their Marxist, socialist and nanny-state policies and programs on the people. It’s the kind of change in which few Americans — contrary to Obama’s campaign sloganeering — can believe.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Retired Navy SEAL Fears Loss of Liberty

EDITOR’S NOTE: Two years ago this week, I shared the piece below under a headline similar to the one above. In light of the continuing assaults on individual freedoms of Americans, I decided to share it again and hope you will, too.

New York Army National Guard Sgt. Adama Ilbouda, left, and NY Air National Guard Tech. Sgt. David Tayler distribute fuel at the Staten Island Armory during the Hurricane Sandy response, Nov. 3, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy.

New York Army National Guard Sgt. Adama Ilbouda, left, and NY Air National Guard Tech. Sgt. David Tayler distribute fuel at the Staten Island Armory during the Hurricane Sandy response, Nov. 3, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy.

On May 13, a “Final Rule” on “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies,” according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, took effect.  I became aware of it today after a retired U.S. Navy SEAL friend sent me a note containing this link to a Government Printing Office web page on which the rule was published online April 12.  His note appears below:

“I had to contact my lawyer to translate this,” he wrote, “but in a nutshell, our liberty is shrinking faster than most folks think and this regime is setting itself up to subjugate us all…  Please read and forward to anyone who you think gives a shit about losing this country to socialists.”

Anytime someone like this, a guy who’s “been there and done that,” uses this kind of pointed language to describe something he finds troubling, I tend to pay attention and take his advice.

The main portions of the published language of this Final Rule appear below, modified only slightly in format and accompanied by the language of two published comments as well as DoD’s responses to those comments:

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. The purpose of this rule is to implement the statutory requirements for the Department of Defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies. This rule provides specific policy direction and assigns responsibilities to Department of Defense key individuals providing support to Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies, including response to civil disturbances within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any other political subdivision thereof.

b. The legal authority for this rule is 10 U.S.C. 375, “Restriction on participation by Military Personnel.”

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Rule

a. Support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act — The primary restriction on DoD participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act. It provides that whoever willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute U.S. laws, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, shall be fined under title 18, U.S.C., or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Section 182.6 (a) describes in detail the assistance that the Department of Defense may and may not provide civilian law enforcement agencies.

b. Support During Civil Disturbances — The President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to employ the Armed Forces of the United States to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, for civil disturbances is important due to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population. The employment of Federal military forces to control civil disturbances shall only occur in a specified civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances as authorized by the President, normally through issuance of an Executive order or other Presidential directive authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense to provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific State or locality.

III. Costs and Benefits

This rule does not have a significant effect on the economy.  However, the Department of Defense may provide support to civilian law enforcement entities on either a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis depending on the authority under which the support is provided. The benefit to the elements of the Department of Defense providing such support may include a benefit that is substantially equivalent to that derived from military operations or training. Additionally, the recipient civilian law enforcement agencies benefit from the Department of Defense’s substantial capabilities when those capabilities are not needed for Department of Defense missions.

Public Comments

On Tuesday, December 28, 2010, the Department of Defense published a proposed rule (75 FR 81547) requesting public comment. Two comments were received. Below are the comments and responses.

Comment #1. Comment on Proposed Rule: 32 CFR Part 182 DOD-2009-OS-0038. The definition given in Sec.  182.3 of “civil disturbance” is overly broad and encompasses any number of situations that the Legislature and DOD entities might not have in mind at the time of drafting this rule. It is my recommendation that specific reference be made to DOD Directive 3025.12 within Sec.  182.3 to allay any possible misreading of 32 CFR part 182. If Posse Comitatus is going to be suspended in times other than those specifically authorized by the Constitution, Congress must act to make the language clear and unambiguous. In addition, the definition of “Emergency Authority” in Sec. 182.3 and DOD 3025.12 is unclear. In what sort of a civil emergency can prior Presidential authorization be “impossible” to obtain. These two definitions read together give an extraordinary degree of latitude to DOD entities within the borders of the United States. Finally, I question whether a rule is the appropriate venue for an expansion of this nature. Perhaps this is a task best left to congress for full public scrutiny and debate. Should this really be a task left to the DOD to make a rule essentially gutting 10 U.S.C.A. 331-4? Despite the fact that this rule has received certification by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), I seriously question whether there are not significant implications for its enactment under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). If it is left to the DOD to determine when force is necessary, absent a Presidential order and absent the cooperation of local authorities, Posse Comitatus is for all intents and purposes at an end.

DoD Response: No action required. This instruction cancels DoD Directive 3025.12. “Civil disturbance” is an approved definition in the DoD Dictionary and makes no reference to the Posse Comitatus Act being “suspended.” Also this rule does not make reference to the suspension of Posse Comitatus Act. It lists those actions that are permissible and restricted under the Act. The author also recommends that Congress, rather than DoD, make the language “clear and unambiguous.”

Comment #2. The Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. 1385, clearly applies to National Guard troops which have been federalized and are deployed under Title 10 authority within the United States. However, the courts have not definitively ruled on whether the Act applies to troops deployed under Title 32, and generally it is assumed that the act does not apply under those circumstances. If Sec.  182.4(b) of this rule is meant to clearly state that the National Guard is, in fact, to act in compliance with the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act while in support of civilian law enforcement officials while deployed under Title 32 authority as well as Title 10, then this is a welcome clarification of DoD policy.

DoD Response:  No action required. National Guard forces operating under Title 32 are under State control, and the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply. State law governs what actions state officials and state National Guard forces may take.

Do you think the information above was worth sharing?  If so, please share it again.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.