Avatar feed
Responses: 7
CPT Military Police
2
2
0
Edited 9 y ago
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SGM Mikel Dawson
9 y
CPT (Join to see) And most of these ranchers don't want any "stand offs", they just want an even playing field. I understand how the BLM, Forest Service and such can force things their way. If you read my above link, you'll see they even went so far as at one point sell their ranch to stay in grace. It just pisses me off when the little guy gets pushed around when he was there before the BLM and such were. I want to see a peaceful outcome and thanks for the above post. I think when we get as much of the facts out in the open, people can make good calls on how they feel.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Mikel Dawson
1
1
0
Edited 9 y ago
I'm on the fence on this one. First I understand the whole story. I understand how Bundy and crew feels, especially after understanding the whole story, but I don't know if it's the right or wrong way. There are times when the Federal Government runs rough shod over us to get what "they" want and this is one of those times. I think everyone needs to know the entire story behind this action before passing judgement, so please take some time and read: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Contracting Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
9 y
They served their time as sentenced by the judge, then some new leadership decides that the terrorism minimum sentence now applies so they need to go back to jail, this sounds like double jeopardy more than anything else I've seen before. Someone please explain why arson on federal land is absolute terrorism. The Arson charge is debatable at best, the terrorism is ridiculous.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Walter Miller
0
0
0
(0)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Contracting Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
9 y
We all certainly should fire on US citizens if there is prudence and authorization to do so. Support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. There just needs to be congressional or judicial approval to use the federal military or the order violates posse comitatus.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Capt Walter Miller
9 y
Well, it is against the law to do that, so if you do fire on US citizens, you will have obeyed an unlawful order.

Walt
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Capt Walter Miller
9 y
"The original Posse Comitatus Act referred essentially to the United States Army. The United States Air Force was added in 1956, and the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the United States Department of Defense. This law is often relied upon to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering in domestic law enforcement." - wiki
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Capt Walter Miller
9 y
Hmmm...

"In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[7]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[8]

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[9] It was originally written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness." - wiki

Another creepy thing done by Bush.

Walt
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close