Posted on 03/11/2009 9:46:49 AM PDT by fightinbluhen51
Click the link, too short to post
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
The vaunted Texas Rangers are an INVESTIGATORY branch of the TX DPS. They are not utilized as "front line" LEOs, I've worked with them quite a few times during 31 years as a state LEO. People have watched too much "Walker Texas Ranger" and Rangers don't run around with five-day beards either, always clean shaven and professional looking, shirt, tie, hat, like they should be (very strict dress code and professional pride combined).
Things go in cycles, I've seen two attempts to disband the Rangers, another one is being talked about as I write this. Probably won't happen but don't think that it can't. Many people have lost the importance of keeping traditions which engender morale and efficiency.
I don't remember if there was patrolling in the "impact area" of Lawton OK. or Columbus GA. or Tacoma WA. for that matter, but with out a shred of doubt they were in the town of Leesville LA. when Ft. Polk was a basic training post.
I spent an action filled night there that also involved dodging those patrols.
wikipedia cleansed Obama’s page. The info is all copied and pasted at FR from last year. FYI.
I just love interviews when both the interviewee and interviewer are both idiots!
Well, the gov needs to be obeyed I guess /half-sarc Thanks for the response.
You may be right. I unfortunately thought everyone was just being partisan during the Bush years, but it appears he did sign some creepy things.
They were standing on street corners to deter looting in New Orleans.
And what does something that happened 50 years ago have to do with this?
Isn’t that what I said?
I thought the use of the military was the topic and when you pointed out that the Washington DC example took place in a city that has an unusual legal definition, I then showed you the Arkansas example.
I don’t get your question, can you elaborate?
The state of Arkansas was actively defying federal law, and was using state agencies such as the state police to deny people of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Just like the MP’s helping to watch over a small part of a crime scene that stretched over two counties, and four towns is different than what happened in Arkansas.
As I said before, the MP’s were not there to enforce laws. They did not assume patrol duties from the civil authorities. They were not doing traffic stops, issuing tickets, questioning witnesses, or making arrests.
Now with that said, do I agree with federal laws being enforced at bayonet point? No.
Do I agree with the state denying the rights of those students? No.
But I do understand the use of federal troops in the case of Arkansas because the governor would or could refuse federalization of the state's National Guard for one. Second, the state National Guard troops would more than likely share the same sentiments as the governor, and the local agencies, and thus are unreliable.
Who is left to protect the rights of Americans if state agencies are corrupted as they were in Arkansas?
“As I said before, the MP’s were not there to enforce laws. They did not assume patrol duties from the civil authorities. They were not doing traffic stops, issuing tickets, questioning witnesses, or making arrests.
Now with that said, do I agree with federal laws being enforced at bayonet point? No.”
I’m not really taking a stand on any of this, you and I might even be in agreement I just like to remind people that none of this Posse Comitatus type stuff is as clear and settled as some people like to pretend (not you).
We seem to be in the earliest stages of these discussions here at FR and it is no wonder, it is a very difficult subject and especially with the mix of differing theories and actual history.
Here is an enlightening forum discussion by military police and other law enforcement, even they are having a difficult time sorting out this issue although they seem to be getting somewhere as regards MPs.
“Powers of MPs in the States”
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37488&page=6
You’re kidding right?
No, I'm not.
Mutual aid in emergencies does not normally include armed patrol. In a mass causality situation there would be coordinated efforts, but none would or should include armed patrols by active duty personnel.
Someone else had mentioned Washington D.C. with the use of federal troops to control anti-war protesters in the late 60’s early 70’s. All I did was concur with yet another member who stated that Washington D.C. is a military district.
Give me a bit and I’ll find the posts for ya.
“A few months after the 1971 event, my permanent draft deferment was finally awarded to me and I then enlisted in the army.”
LOL! That’s one way to “stick it to the man”.
Thanks for the insight into that time period. (I was going to guess 1972, but thought that might have been a bit late. Then was going to guess 1969 - but thought that was too early!)
I recall trying to find an image of machine-gun nests on the street corners of D.C. from back then. I had heard about it - but wanted “proof”. But from your description (where was that from?) - it sounds like what I had heard was correct?
“LOL! That’s one way to “stick it to the man”.”
There was never a question of me going in the military at age ten or so I already had my German Mauser, bayonet and home made practice dummy. I just didn’t believe in the draft back then and since I got hit with a number 14 or 16 lottery number I wanted to beat it before I enlisted, I have an independent personality quirk.
I don’t recall seeing machine gun nests but it wouldn’t surprise me because they seriously cannot risk losing control of DC, as it was 13,000 were taken into custody (many if not most were never charged but held for many days, I was held for five days).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.