Federal Troops Sent To Alabama

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Old Goat

New member
May 5, 2008
186
0
0
Who sent soldiers into an Alabama town last week? - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

I was watching Beck today and learned about this. Federal troops sent into a civilian situation - and NO BODY knows who sent the order for them to deploy. Beck said they contacted 1. the Governor's office - they have no idea who ordered these troops on the scene. 2. The White House would not comment and 3. the Justice Dept. tried to make like the whole thing was not worth reporting.

We were discussing this a few months back - and now it has actually happened in my state. :angryfire:
 


Well, those of us in Northern states tend to pay for the bridges and highways in YOUR state.

Why? Your absence of state taxes in Alabama or Mississippi or in whatever god-forsaken backwater inbred state you live means that I, as a resident of a state that does collect sufficient state taxes to pay for our own infrastructure are liable to underwrite YOUR infrastructure, YOUR bridges, YOUR highways, YOUR streets, YOUR state police ...

I'm glad you enjoy not paying state taxes. Enjoy your new power plant, bridge and highway ... thanks to those of us who pay for our own infrastructure and additionally subsidize yours.

Federal Troops into Alabama? Good. It's about time. I'm tired of paying for your ass.

See further details on my opinion here:
Fuck the South
 
"The only function they did was directing traffic. They took drinks and snacks to other people working crime scenes," King said. "I'm proud they were here."

Yeah, watch out for those big bad MP's...

Residents said soldiers from Fort Rucker, a major employer in southeastern Alabama, have a reputation for helping nearby communities in emergencies.
According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service, federal law generally prohibits the armed forces from being used as domestic police. Exceptions include emergencies, when troops can help civilians but don't directly act as police.
 
sinewave said:
Well, those of us in Northern states tend to pay for the bridges and highways in YOUR state.

Why? Your absence of state taxes in Alabama or Mississippi or in whatever god-forsaken backwater inbred state you live means that I, as a resident of a state that does collect sufficient state taxes to pay for our own infrastructure are liable to underwrite YOUR infrastructure, YOUR bridges, YOUR highways, YOUR streets, YOUR state police ...

I'm glad you enjoy not paying state taxes. Enjoy your new power plant, bridge and highway ... thanks to those of us who pay for our own infrastructure and additionally subsidize yours.

Federal Troops into Alabama? Good. It's about time. I'm tired of paying for your ass.

See further details on my opinion here:
Fuck the South
Click to expand...

How about a little research next time:

Alabama state taxes
 
subigo said:
"The only function they did was directing traffic. They took drinks and snacks to other people working crime scenes," King said. "I'm proud they were here."

Yeah, watch out for those big bad MP's...

Residents said soldiers from Fort Rucker, a major employer in southeastern Alabama, have a reputation for helping nearby communities in emergencies.
According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service, federal law generally prohibits the armed forces from being used as domestic police. Exceptions include emergencies, when troops can help civilians but don't directly act as police.
Click to expand...

Where do you see that? It's not in the article he linked to.
 
sinewave said:
Same to you:
Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar

Summary:
Average return on federal tax dollars as of fiscal year 2005:
NY: $0.82
AL: $1.63

Whoa! is that a 2:1 ratio? Who, I wonder, is paying for that gap, hmmmm?
Click to expand...

sinewave said:
Well, those of us in Northern states tend to pay for the bridges and highways in YOUR state.

Why? Your absence of state taxes in Alabama or Mississippi or in whatever god-forsaken backwater inbred state you live means that I, as a resident of a state that does collect sufficient state taxes to pay for our own infrastructure are liable to underwrite YOUR infrastructure, YOUR bridges, YOUR highways, YOUR streets, YOUR state police ...
Click to expand...

Nowhere in my post did I mention the amount of taxes paid by this state versus any other state. I was simply calling out your "absence of state taxes in Alabama" claim. So you agree, Alabama does pay state taxes. Thanks for clearing it up.
 
stoxup said:
Nowhere in my post did I mention the amount of taxes paid by this state versus any other state. I was simply calling out your "absence of state taxes in Alabama" claim. So you agree, Alabama does pay state taxes. Thanks for clearing it up.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

My issue is with services delivered vis-a-vis dollars paid.

Do your state taxes cover your expenses in Alabama? No, not according to the records. See my link above from the Fed. The numbers indicate that, even though I reside in NY, I subsidize infrastructure in Alabama and other low- or no-tax states.

I didn't make it up, it's on record.

So yeah, you pay about half of your share. Meanwhile, I'm paying my share as well as a significant portion of yours.
 
I'd call it a teaser, lets see what we can get away with kind of thing. They should never had been there period.
 
Sinewave, you are missing the point. This is not about taxes - this is about the Federal government meddling in a state's affairs. Gov. Riley could have called out the Guard to help if needed, but that is not what happened. Federal troops were sent in where they should not have been - and no one will say who gave the order. The law was broken.

"Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“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,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added."

This will give you some background as to what the thread is about. It is quoted from this article:

CNSNews.com - Army Investigating How and Why Troops Were Sent Into Alabama Town After Murder Spree

Whether you feel it was "ok" to do is not the point. We should all be concerned when soldiers are patrolling our streets - and we don't even know who sent them.
 
kingofsp said:
The Port of Los Angeles keeps us ballin' over here. Not so much lately, though. And I was merely alluding to Sweet Home Alabama. Dang.
Click to expand...

I recognized the allusion. but the fiscal reality is both documented and clear. I don't need to quote a pop song to get that across.
 
Thanks Old Goat. I'm sorry if I missed the point.

I'll take some time to read through the links posted here.

Let me apologize in advance if I made light of a serious issue.

Best,
Sine

Old Goat said:
Sinewave, you are missing the point. This is not about taxes - this is about the Federal government meddling in a state's affairs. Gov. Riley could have called out the Guard to help if needed, but that is not what happened. Federal troops were sent in where they should not have been - and no one will say who gave the order. The law was broken.

"Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“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,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added."

This will give you some background as to what the thread is about. It is quoted from this article:

CNSNews.com - Army Investigating How and Why Troops Were Sent Into Alabama Town After Murder Spree

Whether you feel it was "ok" to do is not the point. We should all be concerned when soldiers are patrolling our streets - and we don't even know who sent them.
Click to expand...
 
Didn't BushCo suspend Posse Comitatus a few years ago? I remember there was this big old flap about it at the time...

"Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder.""

In essence, it repeals Posse Comitatus. Not a stretch to deploy federal troops whenever wherever, although I do wonder who took it upon themselves to give the order...
 
Guys, read the article I posted above. It was just a group MP's who got together and went to help, nobody sent them. I lived on fort leonard wood for six years and the MP's there did the same thing... Something bad happens in the neighboring towns and they go help. Nothing to see here...
 
Nikko said:
Didn't BushCo suspend Posse Comitatus a few years ago? I remember there was this big old flap about it at the time...

"Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder.""

In essence, it repeals Posse Comitatus. Not a stretch to deploy federal troops whenever wherever, although I do wonder who took it upon themselves to give the order...
Click to expand...

Yes if the president declares "public emergency" - I didn't hear that the president declared "public emergency" have you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back