RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property

RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 4:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk And it wont. Posse Comitatus. You really need to look up the law before you jump head first into idiocy. The Posse Comitatus act was passed in 1878 and prevents federal troops from being used to enforce domestic policies (i.e as police) within the borders of the United States and was a direct result of using troops to enforce laws in the south following the civil war. It does not prevent, disallow or other wise stop the Federal government from using federal troops to patrol the borders of the United States, which was a function of the US Army up until the 1930's. Since, in this case, the military would be technically, and clearly enforcing the security of the border (hence the defense part of 'Defense' Department) they would be within the area of responsibility for the military to do so. Furthermore, as it was when General Pershing was dealing with Pancho Villa, who was little more than a glorified bandit raiding into the US, as well as during the Apache wars when the US Army was forbidden by the state department from crossing the border to pursue fleeing Apaches in order not to offend the Mexican government, the US Army patrolled the border in an attempt to stop hostile forces from crossing the border from Mexico, hostile forces being raiding Apache or the border Bandits of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Since the mandate is to secure the United States from all threats, apprehending the individuals or groups crossing the border is secondary to securing it. Which means, unless the rules of engagement are changed, the US Army would have the authority to detain unarmed individuals until ICE agents can arrive on scene and take custody and engage and eliminate armed individuals or groups crossing the border with any intent of illegal activity. And since cartel drug runners are usually better armed than the Border Patrol, the army is the logical choice. The military would not be enforcing domestic policy, but immigration and illegal drug policy, as well as securing the border against others that might have intentions that fall into terrorist activities. Oh, and due to the threat of enemy agents infiltrating the US, US military forces were used during WW2 on the southern borders for the same reasons, as well as armed patrols on east and west coast beaches on the chance infiltrators were landed by sub. And it has not been the Posse Comatatus act that has kept presidents or congress from doing this, it has been an image issue. They dont want to look like a bunch of racists or worse.

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 4:41:04 PM)
Synchronizing and integrating state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would place them under the control of the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) that was egregiously created in 2002, allegedly to help fight the ‘War on Terror’ — one of the largest acts of treason ever perpetrated against U.S. citizens by its Government. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 Prohibits Using the Military for Civilian Law Enforcement The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 — which EO 13528 clearly subverts — bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. For years Bush tried to accomplish the same thing, especially after his administration’s criminal inactions during the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster. During the height of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina crisis, Bush tried citing presidential prerogatives for using the National Guard troops under the Insurrection Act, a draconian statute that authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to ‘suppress rebellion.’ The plight of Katrina victims was twisted — aided and abetted by complicit corporate media — into an act of ‘rebellion’ and a new criminal category was concocted to criminalize the traumatized New Orleans residents. In keeping with tradition, no mention was made in the corporate media of President Obama’s EO 13528 that egregiously subverts the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. A White House Press Release claims the ten member, bipartisan Council was created ‘to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.’ I am thinking both sides lean the wrong way on this issue. The silence of the media on this is deafening.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 5:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act finds that many owners get inadequate compensation, and that the condemnation process is flawed in other ways. Making America 'white' again, will cost money and piss off a lot of land owners. Yep, that Trump guy, he's just like me and you, out for the little guy helping all he can and cleaning out the swamp alright. Just 'give' the govt. your land...or else. You don't want to read these lowlights. Plus, we aren't up to the wall yet, we're still looking to replace fence from 2006. Headache on top of headache and the general incompetence. Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values. Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests. The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes. The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process. On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners. Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value. Happy now ? HERE This whole rant is about things that took place under Obama. "A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act" I didn't know that Obama was President in 2006. [8\|]

bounty44 -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 6:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk And it wont. Posse Comitatus. you are as bad at this as you are at Obama's gdp mnottertroll. different name, same impotency: quote: 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 as may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/20a66345129fe3d885256e5b00571830/47c2b664085060fc85256e5b00576e6e/$FILE/Volume175Felicetti.pdf and a little snippet just for you hillwilliam: quote: By 1986, even prominent civil libertarians began to question the DOD’s reluctance to participate in protecting the border from foreign threats,358 noting how easily terrorists could exploit this weakness.359 they must be "libertarians in name only" right?

bounty44 -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 6:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This whole rant is about things that took place under Obama. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam "A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act" I didn't know that Obama was President in 2006. [8\|] the act is from 2006. the study is of the actions enabled by the act, which necessarily occurred afterwards, beginning under bush AND continuing through all of Obama's presidency. https://features.propublica.org/eminent-domain-and-the-wall/the-taking-texas-government-property-seizure/ ps: both Hillary and Obama voted for the bill.

BamaD -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 6:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act finds that many owners get inadequate compensation, and that the condemnation process is flawed in other ways. Making America 'white' again, will cost money and piss off a lot of land owners. Yep, that Trump guy, he's just like me and you, out for the little guy helping all he can and cleaning out the swamp alright. Just 'give' the govt. your land...or else. You don't want to read these lowlights. Plus, we aren't up to the wall yet, we're still looking to replace fence from 2006. Headache on top of headache and the general incompetence. Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values. Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests. The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes. The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process. On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners. Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value. Happy now ? HERE This whole rant is about things that took place under Obama. "A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act" I didn't know that Obama was President in 2006. [8\|] The vast majority of his tirade was about things during the Obama administration. Saying it was all Obama was far more accurate than blaming Trump for this.

BamaD -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 6:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act finds that many owners get inadequate compensation, and that the condemnation process is flawed in other ways. Making America 'white' again, will cost money and piss off a lot of land owners. Yep, that Trump guy, he's just like me and you, out for the little guy helping all he can and cleaning out the swamp alright. Just 'give' the govt. your land...or else. You don't want to read these lowlights. Plus, we aren't up to the wall yet, we're still looking to replace fence from 2006. Headache on top of headache and the general incompetence. Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values. Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests. The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes. The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process. On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners. Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value. Happy now ? HERE This whole rant is about things that took place under Obama. "A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act" I didn't know that Obama was President in 2006. [8\|] The vast majority was under Obama. none of it was under Trump. And you Are on to me.

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 7:59:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act finds that many owners get inadequate compensation, and that the condemnation process is flawed in other ways. Making America 'white' again, will cost money and piss off a lot of land owners. Yep, that Trump guy, he's just like me and you, out for the little guy helping all he can and cleaning out the swamp alright. Just 'give' the govt. your land...or else. You don't want to read these lowlights. Plus, we aren't up to the wall yet, we're still looking to replace fence from 2006. Headache on top of headache and the general incompetence. Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values. Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests. The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes. The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process. On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners. Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value. Happy now ? HERE This whole rant is about things that took place under Obama. "A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act" I didn't know that Obama was President in 2006. [8\|] The vast majority was under Obama. none of it was under Trump. And you Are on to me. Well the OP is as much about what's coming. Give this some time and we might see some protacted fights. Plus the wall will likely require more land...so well see.

Real0ne -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 8:12:01 PM)
Nothing like turning your thread into a racism thread, the fact is despite scrotumus maximus sucking the kings cock ED is unconstitutional on its face. See Kelo.

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 8:16:35 PM)
More: President George W. Bush’s push for comprehensive immigration reform, which would have legalized the unauthorized immigrants in the United States, gave the hawks their opportunity. In 2006, Congress approved the Secure Fence Act mandating nearly 700 miles of fencing on the border. The president signed on to the bill hoping to placate the secure-the-border-first crowd and obtain the humane immigration changes that he wanted. This sales job enabled it to pass with bipartisan support from the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The immigration reform never materialized, but fence construction was nearly complete by 2009, and there are now 617 total miles of physical barriers, 36 miles of which have two layers. Here's the rub: Trump has been adamant that his wall will be built “ahead of schedule.” For that to happen, he’ll need to avoid the various legal issues that plagued earlier efforts. Entities other than the federal government-states, Indian tribes, private individuals-control over two-thirds of borderland property. Private parties own the vast majority of the border in Texas, and for this reason, roughly 70 percent of the existing border fence is located in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Almost all of it is on federally controlled land. The Bush administration bullied property owners, threatening to sue them if they did not “voluntarily” hand over the rights to their land. It offered no compensation for doing so. Thinking that they had no recourse, some people signed off, but others refused. The government then attempted to use eminent domain, a procedure Trump has long defended, to seize their property, but the lawsuits imposed serious delays-seven years in one case. In 2009, the Homeland Security inspector general concluded that the Border Patrol had “achieved [its] progress primarily in areas where environmental and real estate issues did not cause significant delay.” One intransigent resident had owned his property since before the “Roosevelt easement,” which gives the federal government a 60-foot right of way along the border. He fought the administration, so the fence had until recently a 1.2-mile gap on his land. Border residents fought more than a third of all land transfers, in fact. Because the Constitution promises just compensation for takings, Trump can do little to speed this process. Native American tribes also have the capacity to stop construction of barriers. The Tohono O’odham Nation, which has land on both sides of the border, has already pledged to fight any efforts to build a wall there. In 2007, when the tribe allowed vehicle barriers to be constructed, the Bush administration ended up desecrating Indian burial grounds and digging up human remains. The new president would need a stand-alone bill from Congress to condemn their land. Senate Democrats can (and likely would) filibuster such an effort. Water rights have also been a problem for the fence. A 1970 treaty requires that the floodplain of the Rio Grande remain open to both sides of the border. The Obama administration attempted to build fences along the river anyway, but the treaty and the river’s floods forced the barrier to be placed so far into the interior of the United States that it has many holes to allow U.S. residents access to their property. These also provide an opportunity for border crossers. HERE

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 8:21:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Nothing like turning your thread into a racism thread, the fact is despite scrotumus maximus sucking the kings cock ED is unconstitutional on its face. See Kelo. I simply cannot figure Kelo out and because it got the liberals to join in the 5-4 decision. However, the argument was not over ED but that the constitution stipulates that what's taken is for public use, rather than private profit from public use. Yes, it was a terrible precedent. However, no such counter argument is relevant here.

Greta75 -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 8:28:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Or take all the 'inhumane' land mines we have stuck in military warehouses and put em on the border. OMG, we agree on something! Except, since they are throwing their babies over the border. Most people will blanch at this.

LTE -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 9:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers No, it's not but of course, Trump isn't the first but it's just now that his policies effect these land owners. Making America 'great' again which kinda ridiculous to begin with. Certainly America being great in the first place, is, has been and will always be great. Of course, as long as you are not one of her targets. With [his] entry restrictions, who Trump seeks to keep out, with this wall and who it seeks to keep out, all of the right wing howling about how 'these people have taken 'our' jobs...makes 'great' code word for Making America 'white again.' The are interesting opinions. I disagree with them all. By each point: Yes. His policy of securing the United States is dictated by the Constitution. This policy of protecting life and liberty of American citizens will affect land owners whose land will be purchased. I'm sorry, what was the question again? America was greater by all measurements. It is not as great as it was. Trump was hired to make it so again. Yes, do not fuck with America or you will be a target and yes that is a bad thing to be. I'm sorry, what was the question again? The "great' code word is Making America secure again. It was never "white". I'm sorry, what was the question again?

LTE -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 9:16:46 PM)
America has always encouraged legal immigration. On the statue of liberty are these words: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. " These words greeted immigrants arriving at Ellis Island as legal immigrants on their way to becoming citizens in time. This is all well known so obviously I am miss-understanding the question so I'm sorry, what was your question?

LTE -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 9:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers More: President George W. Bush’s push for comprehensive immigration reform, which would have legalized the unauthorized immigrants in the United States, gave the hawks their opportunity. In 2006, Congress approved the Secure Fence Act mandating nearly 700 miles of fencing on the border. The president signed on to the bill hoping to placate the secure-the-border-first crowd and obtain the humane immigration changes that he wanted. This sales job enabled it to pass with bipartisan support from the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The immigration reform never materialized, but fence construction was nearly complete by 2009, and there are now 617 total miles of physical barriers, 36 miles of which have two layers. Here's the rub: Trump has been adamant that his wall will be built “ahead of schedule.” For that to happen, he’ll need to avoid the various legal issues that plagued earlier efforts. Entities other than the federal government-states, Indian tribes, private individuals-control over two-thirds of borderland property. Private parties own the vast majority of the border in Texas, and for this reason, roughly 70 percent of the existing border fence is located in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Almost all of it is on federally controlled land. The Bush administration bullied property owners, threatening to sue them if they did not “voluntarily” hand over the rights to their land. It offered no compensation for doing so. Thinking that they had no recourse, some people signed off, but others refused. The government then attempted to use eminent domain, a procedure Trump has long defended, to seize their property, but the lawsuits imposed serious delays-seven years in one case. In 2009, the Homeland Security inspector general concluded that the Border Patrol had “achieved [its] progress primarily in areas where environmental and real estate issues did not cause significant delay.” One intransigent resident had owned his property since before the “Roosevelt easement,” which gives the federal government a 60-foot right of way along the border. He fought the administration, so the fence had until recently a 1.2-mile gap on his land. Border residents fought more than a third of all land transfers, in fact. Because the Constitution promises just compensation for takings, Trump can do little to speed this process. Native American tribes also have the capacity to stop construction of barriers. The Tohono O’odham Nation, which has land on both sides of the border, has already pledged to fight any efforts to build a wall there. In 2007, when the tribe allowed vehicle barriers to be constructed, the Bush administration ended up desecrating Indian burial grounds and digging up human remains. The new president would need a stand-alone bill from Congress to condemn their land. Senate Democrats can (and likely would) filibuster such an effort. Water rights have also been a problem for the fence. A 1970 treaty requires that the floodplain of the Rio Grande remain open to both sides of the border. The Obama administration attempted to build fences along the river anyway, but the treaty and the river’s floods forced the barrier to be placed so far into the interior of the United States that it has many holes to allow U.S. residents access to their property. These also provide an opportunity for border crossers. HERE Whew. The only response required is the safety and sovereignty of the United States trumps (no pun intended) all that stuff, Constitutionally. It only take a strong President to get the wall done which is why he was hired. The President has the power to do what it takes to defend the U.S. from enemies foreign and domestic. This is in his Oath of Office by no accident or coincidence which is why some liberal courts can be used to slow him down in the execution of that oath but not stop him as we have seen already if you recall what the Supremes just did in support of his Constitutionally charged duty to defend the U.S.

LTE -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 9:33:07 PM)
btw. Illegal immigrants, non-Citizens, have no Constitutional rights. We respect their right to life in the name of decency and they must prove their lives are threatened if they are wanting "Sanctuary" but they have no rights. Nor do we in other countries unless it is by treaty.

tamaka -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 9:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTE btw. Illegal immigrants, non-Citizens, have no Constitutional rights. We respect their right to life in the name of decency and they must prove their lives are threatened if they are wanting "Sanctuary" but they have no rights. Nor do we in other countries unless it is by treaty. So much for travel abroad.

MrRodgers -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/21/2017 10:08:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTE btw. Illegal immigrants, non-Citizens, have no Constitutional rights. We respect their right to life in the name of decency and they must prove their lives are threatened if they are wanting "Sanctuary" but they have no rights. Nor do we in other countries unless it is by treaty. In answer to all of what you have let's cut through the bullshit, like 'protecting the nations security. Legal immigration and illegal immigration both are used and have its purposes and its resulting negatives. 1000's brought in legally to work and in time...legally to stay. 1000's more brought in legally to work, but illegally...stay beyond their work visa. A majority of both serve the interests of business none of which give a fuck as long as we don't throw them in jail. If I understand you correctly, you suggest essentially, that certain people do not enjoy such legal protections as citizens. So obviously they don't deserve the presumption of innocence and are to be and can be presumed guilty. Yet our courts still do insist, govt. has no right to make such a presumption. So the protect our borders and for greater national security is horseshit until I see a exponentially larger enforcement effort on ALL parties aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Ironic isn't it how in our revolution we decreed that all men were endowed with inalienable rights and not endowed by govt. but by our creator no less. Not true I guess if you are from a different country and certainly if they aren't...the right color. As for Ellis island ? What a joke. We took in 10's of 1000's of criminals and gave them citizenship. Ask the Irish and eastern Europeans who got in just fine as long as they were disease free...and white.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/23/2017 10:26:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Synchronizing and integrating state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would place them under the control of the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) that was egregiously created in 2002, allegedly to help fight the ‘War on Terror’ — one of the largest acts of treason ever perpetrated against U.S. citizens by its Government. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 Prohibits Using the Military for Civilian Law Enforcement I guess, if your argument is: "Terrorist attacks are actually 'criminal' matters", it works, but contrary to Obama and all the Lefties falling into lock-step with him, the 9/11 attack was NOT a "criminal". It was an "act of war". The shootings at Ft. Hood(?) were NOT acts of "workplace violence". They were attacks upon US soldiers on US soil by a person who, by his own admission aligned himself ideologically with an enemy organization (they declared war on us). Worse yet, by my estimation it made him a spy, eligible for the death penalty. Either way, US troops, protecting the US border cannot be convoluted into violating Posse Comitatus.

jlf1961 -> RE: Eminent Domain to seize border wall land...harms American Property (12/23/2017 11:10:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Synchronizing and integrating state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would place them under the control of the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) that was egregiously created in 2002, allegedly to help fight the ‘War on Terror’ — one of the largest acts of treason ever perpetrated against U.S. citizens by its Government. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 Prohibits Using the Military for Civilian Law Enforcement Very true, except that patrolling the border in the interest of National security is not using the military for civilian law enforcement. Which is why the US Army was patrolling the border well into the thirties. So, where the hell is the violation of the act? If the military detains unarmed civilians until border patrol agents can pick them up, they are not violating the act. If they kill a few armed drug smugglers, they are not enforcing civilian laws, they are preventing an armed crossing of the border. If it was legal for Pershing to attack groups of Pancho Villa's bandits crossing the border, it would be the same thing. If that is an issue, fine, take the few million land mines the US military has laying in warehouses and mine the damn border, as long as the fields are marked, if some idiot wants to try his luck, its on them.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1308594