firing a high-powered combat rifle in an airport could do more harm than good
[Formatted for legibility, line wrapping. Please take the few moments necessary to ensure posted material is readable. KMSelf] Notice how its not an evil "assault rifle" but a "combat rifle" now... http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000079569oct05.story?coll=la%2Dheadline... RESPONSE TO TERROR L.A., S.F. Airports to Get National Guard Safety: Soldiers armed with loaded M-16s will boost security, starting today. The rifles will be fired as a last resort, a spokesman says. By PETER Y. HONG, TIMES STAFF WRITER National Guard troops with M-16 assault rifles are to report for guard duty at Los Angeles International and San Francisco airports today, in a move Gov. Gray Davis called "a symbol of the changes that have occurred at airports to enhance passenger safety." But experts warn--and Guard officials acknowledge--that the show of force against terrorism must be executed with great care to avoid harming those it is meant to protect. John Reppert, a retired Army general who is a research center director at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, said the presence of the National Guard may be most important as a symbol. "Frankly, in my opinion, the reason they are there is to restore confidence to the public," Reppert said. Carrying M-16s, for instance, is useful for intimidating wrong-doers and reassuring skittish travelers, he said. But actually firing a high-powered combat rifle in an airport terminal could do more harm than good. "I would not want soldiers to use an M-16 in a public place," Reppert said. "Opening fire in an airport terminal is dramatically different from doing so in a village." The harder bullet used by the assault rifle is more likely to ricochet than a round fired from a pistol, Reppert said, which could harm bystanders. It might even be wise to keep the M-16s unloaded, Reppert said. "As a commander, I would be very nervous about a soldier carrying a loaded gun. For one thing, he might drop it." It is also "unlikely people are going to come in and try to shoot their way to an airplane," he said. It is common for soldiers on guard duty to keep their guns unloaded, with ammunition ready in a pouch. The sentries guarding the USS Cole when it was bombed in October 2000 told the Washington Post they did not have ammunition in their guns, and did not think it made a difference in the surprise attack. But Maj. General Paul D. Monroe Jr., the top officer of the California National Guard, said the M-16s carried at LAX will be loaded. To fire the weapon, the soldier must charge it by pulling a handle and then release the safety mechanism, a process that takes about two seconds, Monroe said. Maj. Stanley Zezotarski, a California National Guard spokesman, noted, however, that Guard troops would fire their weapons only as a last resort, and would typically let armed airport police officers take the lead in situations where shots might be fired. Guard troops today use their weapons sparingly, he said, pointing out that 22 shots were fired by the National Guard during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, though more than 20,000 were fired by the Guard in the 1965 Watts riots. <snip>
.. in a move Gov. Gray Davis called "a symbol of the changes that have occurred ..."
What changes, the shift to a police state? And wasn't there something about not using the military for police matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
.. in a move Gov. Gray Davis called "a symbol of the changes that have occurred ..."
What changes, the shift to a police state?
And wasn't there something about not using the military for police matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok.
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil. There have been a _few_ cases where regular armed forces were deployed in emergencies. Of course, the War of Northern Aggression was one massive terror action and the army was of course deployed. The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades. --Tim May V-CHIP CONTENT WARNING: THIS POST IS RATED: R, V, NPC, RI, S, I13. [For processing by the required-by-1998 V-chips, those reading this post from an archive must set their V-chip to "42-0666." I will not be held responsible for posts incorrectly filtered-out by a V-chip that has been by-passed, hot-chipped, or incorrectly programmed.] ***WARNING!*** It has become necessary to warn potential readers of my messages before they proceed further. This warning may not fully protect me against criminal or civil proceedings, but it may be treated as a positive attempt to obey the various and increasing numbers of laws. * Under the ***TELECOM ACT OF 1996***, minor CHILDREN (under the age of 18) may not read or handle this message under any circumstances. If you are under 18, delete this message NOW. Also, if you are developmentally disabled, irony-impaired, emotionally traumatized, schizophrenic, suffering PMS, affected by Humor Deprivation Syndrom (HDS), or under the care of a doctor, then the TELECOM ACT OF 1996 may apply to you as well, even if you are 18. If you fall into one of these categories and are not considered competent to judge for yourself what you are reading, DELETE this message NOW. * Under the UTAH PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1996, those under the age of 21 may not read this post. All residents of Utah, and Mormons elsewhere, must install the M-Chip. * Under the PROTECTION OF THE REICH laws, residents of Germany may not read this post. * Under the MERCIFUL SHIELD OF ALLAH (Praise be to Him!) holy interpretations of the Koran of the following countries (but not limited to this list) you may not read this post if you are a FEMALE OF ANY AGE: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. Non-female persons may also be barred from reading this post, depending on the settings of your I-Chip. * Under the proposed CHINESE INTERNET laws, covering The People's Republic of China, Formosa, Hong Kong, Macao, Malaysia, and parts of several surrrounding territories, the rules are so nebulous and unspecified that I cannot say whether you are allowed to read this. Thus, you must SUBMIT any post you wish to read to your local authorities for further filtering. * In Singapore, merely be RECEIVING this post you have violated the will of Lee Kwan Yu. Report to your local police office to receive your caning. * Finally, if you are barrred from contact with the Internet, or protected by court order from being disturbed by thoughts which may disturb you, or covered by protective orders, it is up to you to adjust the settings of your V-Chip to ensure that my post does not reach you. *** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN COMPLYING WITH THESE LAWS ***
Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
...
And wasn't there something about not using the military for police matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok.
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil.
Yah, I know. You're right, though, it should be spelled out, not only for the non-USians on the list but for the products of the modern American educational system. (Of which I am one, but I'm trying to overcome it.)
The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades.
Legally, you're right. But since the Guard units are partially trained and equipped with federal money and operate under federal strictures, I don't generally distinguish between state and federal military forces. And of course Gov Davis, like so many others, are "fighting the last war". The organized terrorists won't be going after planes for the second punch, though half-witted copycats will. And the copycats could be stopped by allowing off-duty senior combat soldiers to carry guns on planes, but of course that would lessen the need for centralized power and will never be countenanced. By the way, I like the sig you used on your message. A bit lengthy, but worth the read. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
Steve Furlong wrote:
The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades.
Legally, you're right. But since the Guard units are partially trained and equipped with federal money and operate under federal strictures, I don't generally distinguish between state and federal military forces.
Damn, sent that by mistake while editing. I'm also concerned about the effect of "routinely" having uniformed soldiers out standing guard or running patrols or whatever. Even if they're National Guard rather than federal troops, it accustoms the public to seeing soldiers on the streets, on the borders, in the airports, everywhere. That makes the next step, federal troops everywhere, more likely and less noticeable. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 04:32 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
By the way, I like the sig you used on your message. A bit lengthy, but worth the read.
It's quite old, from around 1996-7 or so. The message is still apt...perhaps more apt, as we race toward erasing all constitutional rights. I'm just playing with software which rotates the .sig I use. I've added a few, and they rotate. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." --Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
At 03:53 PM 10/5/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
And wasn't there something about not using the military for police matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok.
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil.
True.
There have been a _few_ cases where regular armed forces were deployed in emergencies. Of course, the War of Northern Aggression was one massive terror action and the army was of course deployed.
Also true.
The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades.
True as well - until such time as the Nat.Guard is federalized (which can and does happen with ease bordering on routine ho-hummery). If the Nat.Guard is used for domestic actions once they are federalized.... Reese ps- your .sig was longer than your post.
At 03:53 PM 10/05/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
And wasn't there something about not using the military for police matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok.
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil.
There have been a _few_ cases where regular armed forces were deployed in emergencies. Of course, the War of Northern Aggression was one massive terror action and the army was of course deployed.
The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades.
There was a recent article on Posse Comitatus by some military lawyer that was mentioned on some list in the last month. IANAJAG, so I don't know how valid it is, but he asserts, probably correctly, that: 1) Posse Comitatus is just a *law*, not a Constitutional clause, not a court decision - Congress made it, so they can change it, any time 51% of them think it's a politically useful thing to do, as long as they can talk the President into it, and most Presidents aren't all that averse to being given more power. 2) In practice, Posse Comitatus has evolved into a procedural issue, not a separation-of-powers issue - the military can't be used for domestic law enforcement, at all, for any reason, ever, unless they're asked properly on the approriate 3-part-carbon form, with the blanks filled in neatly and a signature at the bottom, in which case it's just fine if the military brass agree. The War On Politically Incorrect Drugs has a lot to do with this, but it's been happening anyway. 3) P.C. isn't even an ancient law - it evolved after the War Between The States (you could look up the date, I think 1870s). So it didn't apply to Northern Aggression, whether you accept the Nationalist-Manifest-Destiny position that the Southerners were a bunch of rebels who should be stomped down to protect unity, which wasn't bothered by legal niceties that weren't written yet, or the pro-independence position that free people don't need to rebel, they can simply secede, in which case the Confederacy was a foreign country that the Union Army was invading, and P.C. wouldn't have applied even if it had been written by then. Back in the 60s, during the race riots, it was pretty common to have National Guard troops on the streetcorners to intimidate blacks. Even in Wilmington, Delaware. Sometimes they were also used on student protestors. Not the kind of thing you'd expect in a free country, but this was America.
At 03:53 PM 10/5/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil.
Tim knows all about this, of course, but for the benefit of the folks who may not, here's an excerpt from an article I co-authored a few years ago. -Declan [...] With the end of the cold war, it would have made sense for the U.S. military to shrink. Retired Army chief of staff Edward Meyer told a Washington Post reporter in 1989 that "the end of the cold war makes it inevitable that the Army will shrink far below the 772,000 on duty today." It didn't. Supporters of an expansive U.S. military have spent the last decade finding something for it to do. In the 1980s, Congress amended the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which restricts the use of troops to enforce civilian laws to let the president enlist the military in the War on Drugs. President Reagan in 1986 signed a national security decision directive declaring drug trafficking a threat to the security of the United States. The framers of the Constitution opposed standing armies in general, and especially their use for any purpose other than defending the country against foreign enemies. It was the arrest of civilians by the British army, quartering of soldiers in private homes, and similarly incendiary tactics that provided the tinder that sparked the American Revolution. Less than a century later, President Lincoln usurped constitutional authority in well-chronicled ways. His justification: The inherent power of the commander-in-chief and his duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully Executed." During the Civil War and Reconstruction, the arrest and trial of civilians by military and civilian courts and the impotence of civilian courts when the military refused to respect orders of habeas corpus led to the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act. Since that time, understanding of the dangers of deploying the military in the domestic arena has diminished. Francis Mullen, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, once casually dismissed civil libertarians' concerns about potential abuses if the military joined law enforcement. "There is sufficient oversight on the part of Congress and others," he told a Newsweek reporter, "to deter infringement on individual liberties." A Democratic congressman characterized the Posse Comitatus Act as a "sinful, evil law." Military leaders appear more aware of the danger of deploying forces domestically. Marine Major General Stephen G. Olmstead, deputy assistant secretary of defense for drug policy, warned a Senate subcommittee in 1987 that calling out the military to fight the drug war within the U.S. would be unwise. "One of [America's] greatest strengths is that the military is responsive to civilian authority and that we do not allow the Army, Navy, and the Marines and the Air Force to be a police force. History is replete with countries that allowed that to happen. Disaster is the result." Use of military procedure by FBI agents proved disastrous at Ruby Ridge. Vicky Weaver was murdered in part because the officers who shot her were governed by military rules of engagement. They allow troops to shoot an enemy on sight a far cry from the rules controlling domestic law enforcement. At Ruby Ridge the rules of engagement let officers fire at any armed adult, rather than engage in usual threat assessment. Even though using the military to perform civilian functions is extraordinarily dangerous, the Posse Comitatus Act has gradually been eroded. The Stafford Act of 1984 allows the military to help during natural disasters. After a natural disaster, a governor can ask the president to declare a state of emergency. Once it declares an emergency, FEMA can deploy soldiers on active duty. In August of 1992, the Army was deployed in South Florida to respond to Hurricane Andrew, and a month later on the island of Kauai after Hurricane Iniki. Since the Posse Comitatus Act remained in effect during this time, soldiers could not enforce the law, arrest or detain civilians, or serve search warrants. In South Florida the soldiers doled out aid to citizens and illegal immigrants alike, no questions asked. Active-duty soldiers were not permitted to provide security at relief centers occupied by civilians. When it comes to the use of troops to restore order during riots, however, the president can suspend the Posse Comitatus Act at the stroke of a pen. The act doesn't cover soldiers deployed as authorized by the Constitution or exempted from the act by statute. Defense Department regulations* outline one of the larger loopholes. It allows the use of soldiers "to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disaster, or calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions." The reality? The president can deploy troops whenever he feels like it. President Bush did just this in response to the the Los Angeles riots. On April 29, 1992, the jury released its verdict in the Rodney King trial. A wave of riots followed. On May 1, 1992, California asked the president for aid; Bush responded with an executive order allowing the secretary of defense to call out the Army. [...] * DoD Directive 3025.12.
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be used on U.S. soil.
There have been a _few_ cases where regular armed forces were deployed in emergencies. Of course, the War of Northern Aggression was one massive terror action and the army was of course deployed.
The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for many decades.
There's talk about using regular army troops at the Capitol: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Authorities at the nation's Capitol building are considering bringing in military troops to supplement U.S. Capitol police officers and enhance security. [...] Nichols said authorities were "considering Department of Defense support." That means the troops involved could be National Guard troops or they could be regular Army troops or from another branch of the military. [...] From: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.capitol.vehicle.ban/index.html -MW-
On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:07 PM, Optimizzin Al-gorithm wrote:
[Formatted for legibility, line wrapping. Please take the few moments necessary to ensure posted material is readable. KMSelf]
Notice how its not an evil "assault rifle" but a "combat rifle" now...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000079569oct05.story?coll=la%2Dheadline...
When the objects are in the hands of the proles, the sheeple, they are Evil, Black, Baby-Killing Assault Weapons. When they are in the hands of the staatspolizei, they are "M-16s." In any case, having such rifles in crowded airline terminals is just theater: the intent is to make the sheeple feel safe, so that the sheeple will return to flying and spend money. Better approaches to airline security are obvious. In terms of the arms, note that Israel doesn't use M-16s in airports (though they use them in their army, having mostly retired the Galil). The Uzi is a popular choice in Israel. The H&K MP5 in all of its variations is also popular. More importantly, having several highly-trained marksmen is more useful that having a bunch of BDU-clad weekend warriors standing around with M-16s slung over their shoulders. Duh! And, of course, Rounds Two and Three will not resemble Round One, so most of the current hysteria over airports will shift to something else.
--Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787
participants (7)
-
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
Meyer Wolfsheim -
Optimizzin Al-gorithm -
Reese -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May