Happy Fourth of July

[dale beasley]

Happy 4th to everyone. My grandmother died on the 4th of July 27 years ago, so I always would go pick up my Grandfather and do something with him, If i was not off in the Army. Usually a Baseball Game. He did not like Baseball, but he went to be with me .

He was in the 1st Infantry Division when they hit Ohaha Beach on D-Day. and he had ten rules for life and I would like to share them with you today.


1. Take care of the poor, and I don't mean the lazy.
2. Tell your wife you love her everyday. Don't drink much around her and don't screw around on her.
3. Most preachers are full of shit.
4. Everyday pass the "mirror test".
5. Don't Bottle-Neck at a river crossing, "The Nats" will attack every time.
6. Always do for others as others have done for you.
7. Take care of the Old, and listen to them.
8. Don't pray for nothing, except the ability to accept Gods Will.
9. Never let a day go by, that you don't remember the men you served with.
10, Money talks and bullshit walks.


Happy 4th courtesy of the US MILITARY

DAle Beasley

[cjdaley]

Thanks Dale, Happy July 4th to you too!

It's an interesting topic to see how troops spent July 4th thoughout history (Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Belleau Wood), but July 4, 1944 was tough in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Victory still wasn't assured. It was probably the most tenous summer of our nation's history, worse than 1776 and 1863. It was a war we couldn't lose and the generation that saved the planet had no intetion of losing. I teach my sons to thank vets every day!

Thanks to everyone in the Beasley family (and all the other vets) who've worked so hard for us!!!

[dale beasley]

Thanks Chris for the kind words. yesterday we went to the Braves Game and ate hotdogs...

[FloridaConfederate]

Happy 4th to everyone.


Happy 4th courtesy of the US MILITARY

DAle Beasley

The 4th of July is not courtesy of the US military. It is a celebration of independence gained by citizen soldiers taking up arms against a standing army. There is no martial aspect. There was no formal standing US Military at the time.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

The 4th of July is not courtesy of the US military. It is a celebration of independence gained by citizen soldiers taking up arms against a standing army. There is no martial aspect. There was no formal standing US Military at the time.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida


Your are right, but if it was not a Standing Army now, you would have the liberty you do now.

[8th TexCav]

Belated but I would like to say the following:

Thanks to all of the civilians throughout the history of our country who have supported our cause.

Thanks to all of the citizen-soldiers who have fought at a moments notice to protect our freedoms.

Thanks to all of the professional military service personnel who continue to protect us. I include the National Guard and Reserve in this because they are as an important a part of the overall force now as our regulars!

[tompritchett]

It is a celebration of independence gained by citizen soldiers taking up arms against a standing army. There is no martial aspect. There was no formal standing US Military at the time.

Technically speaking, much of Washington's army coming out of Valley Forge were indeed Regulars hired for multi-year tours of duties by the fledgling U.S. Congress rather than state militia troops. While the U.S. did not yet have a standing army of career professional yets, the core of his army were now longer citizen soldiers in the sense that the militia were. Likewise, it was the regular troops with help from the miltia who sucessfully defendied Baltimore during the War of 1812, effectively guaranteeing that the U.S. would remain independent of Great Britian.

[FloridaConfederate]

Tom your picking nits.

If you wish to view / turn Independence Day and the American Minuteman to represent a regular post Constitution Federalized US Troop who was fighting the Crown only to and knwoingly submit to centralized Federal master. That is your right.

Factually the Declaration contains very little martial verbiage.

I think the iconic image and the American psyche views Independence Day remembering the American Spirit (once societally inate) of the citizen (then by Colony) willing to rise and shake off anyone who would oppress their freedom.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[TheQM]

Gentlemen,

A little real history might be in order. The Colonies were broken up into about three equal groups. About a third supported the Crown, a third supported independence, and a third were neutral.

[8th TexCav]

And unfortunately of the one third who did support the cause, they still did not support the need to tax to support the troops.

[sbl]

Bill I think you mean that the people within those colonies were split three ways as most colonies added units both to the Continental Army and Loyalist units.

[FloridaConfederate]

Independence Day is not a martial holiday as Veterans Day or Memorial Day.

It is the People's day to celebrate our ancestors coming to arms and our Freedom derived from breaking free from the Crown. It is inexorably linked to the Constitutionally afforded Freedoms. It does not celebrate the Standing Army.

Which is why parades, festivities and such are civilian in nature, not military.

Feel free to assign whatever level of minutia you like to satisfy whatever your motivation.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[TheQM]

Bill I think you mean that the people within those colonies were split three ways as most colonies added units both to the Continental Army and Loyalist units.

Scott,

Exactly. In terms of our history, we want to put everything into black and white, while in the real world, everything is various shades of gray. During the revolution there were people who supported both sides and also lots of people who just wanted to be left alone; or maybe make a profit from both sides.

While Washington's army starved at Valley Forge, local farmers were selling their crops to the British army in Philadelphia. The English paid in gold, while the Continentals paid in promises.

[Rescue901]

Independence Day is not a martial holiday as Veterans Day or Memorial Day.

It is the People's day to celebrate our ancestors coming to arms and our Freedom derived from breaking free from the Crown. It is inexorably linked to the Constitutionally afforded Freedoms. It does not celebrate the Standing Army.

Which is why parades, festivities and such are civilian in nature, not military.

Feel free to assign whatever level of minutia you like to satisfy whatever your motivation.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

I agree the 4th isn't a martial holiday. It is the day when the founding fathers of our country told the good King of England to stuff it by saying we are a independant nation. Just don't ever forget that if it wasn't for the regular military and militia units that fought for this new country, last Saturday you would of been sitting by the tellie sipping tea and eating crumpets and oh btw that grand battle flag of the Confederacy along with the Confederate States would never have exsisted and this forum would be dedicated to something else.
Oh another thing. whispers The "actual" Constitution wasn't written until I believe 1784 and did not include the bill of rights until 1787, (Which I believe is the actual date the document was completed) waaaay after July 4th 1776 which is the day we decleared our independence from England hence the name of the holiday, Independence Day..

Hope every one had a great Independence Day, courtesy of our founding fathers and the men of this nations first army.

[my appologies for any grammar or spelling errors stupid work computer has no spell checker]

[sbl]

"....you would of been sitting by the tellie sipping tea and eating crumpets....."

Horrors!


http://pics.livejournal.com/_consume_/pic/0017h1d6

[28thNY]

Somewhat belated, but happy 4th July from a Brit in the US.

[Southern Cal]

However offensive it may be to some, there is nevertheless a tradition of honoring all who sacrificed for liberty on Independence Day, including armed forces personnel, like it or not. If someone has a problem with that tradition, they can call their representatives in Congress and have it outlawed under the hate crimes bill.

In that vein, a particular Congressman recently offered an amendment to this pending legislation, including as a class of people covered under hate crimes statute, members of the military, in addition to the classes of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The amendment was voted down by the majority party. Committing a crime against a soldier because they are a soldier serving their country is not hateful according to a majority in Congress. But don't do or say anything negative about certain other classes of people or you will be punished, not only for what you do, but for what you think, about some other special class of people deemed more equal than others.

More to the point, the Continental Army was formed by the Congress on June 14th, 1775, well before the Declaration of Independence. These eventually became trained as regular troops serving specified enlistments; not militia. After hostilities and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the Continental Army was disbanded on June 14th, 1783, with the exception of some units stationed at West Point, which became the nucleus of the standing U.S. Army.

The Continental Congress didn't get the British to leave by waving the Declaration of Independence at them. The historic record shows militia units certainly did their bit, but it was the regular Continental Army soldiers and allied professional French infantry who shot and killed enough British and their hirelings that the British finally were convinced that further hostilites were fruitless and eventually signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

It was the regular army that made the Declaration of Independence more than just so many fine sentiments written on a piece of paper. It was the standing military of that time who put iron in those words and is the reason why we even have an Indepence Day.

I served in the military at the tail end of the Vietnam War and service members were NOT honored or respected. Jane Fonda spoke at my college making disparaging remarks about our country and military. So I enlisted in the Army. Consequently, I make the most of any and all opportunities to show respect towards current and former military members for their service to our country. Anyone thinks that's wrong during 4th of July celebrations, you have that right to complain about it and even whine about it, but only because the military at several points in history, protected your rights.

U.S. Army Veteran, 4th Infantry Division.

[sbl]

Every country has armed forces. The strength of ours is that it stays within civilian and Constitutional bounds. George Washington set that tradition even before the Constitution was written. I'd be concerned if the US military ever became detatched from the citizenry and elected government.

[FloridaConfederate]

However offensive it may be to some, there is nevertheless a tradition of honoring all who sacrificed for liberty on Independence Day, including armed forces personnel, like it or not. If someone has a problem with that tradition, they can call their representatives in Congress and have it outlawed under the hate crimes bill.


I must assume this is directed at me. I am not saying anything remotely of the sort which you assert here. You really stretch it to read into my post as a slight of servicemen to our Nation. Independence Day is a civic holiday to which there are many historical occurrences of military involvement nationwide. There are as many that have no martial aspect and are by fine Americans just like you and I, and it doesnt mean or detract anything from thier view of our servicemen ?????

I'll argue about a lot of things, but there is nothing to argue here.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Southern Cal]

The 4th of July is not courtesy of the US military. It is a celebration of independence gained by citizen soldiers taking up arms against a standing army. There is no martial aspect. There was no formal standing US Military at the time.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

Nothing to argue here? The post above reads like an argument to me...

I didn't direct anything at you personally. Sorry if you feel that way. Please ignore my off-point rant about our current Congress and how they 'diss' our military while passing laws giving more than equal rights to classes of people deemed victimized or powerless by the politically correct. Perhaps such a rant is better off in the Whine cellar.

To the point, I used the historical record to contradict your argument above about there being no martial aspect (to Independence Day) since there was no formal standing US military at the time (of the Declaration of Independence). The record shows there was indeed a formal standing US army at the time the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Congress formally voted to raise a regular standing army and formally voted George Washington as it's commander, a year before the Declaration of Independence. Congress knew a collection of militia couldn't effectively oppose the British in the field. If there wasn't a formal enlisted Contintental Army, there would be no Independence Day to celebrate. Therefore, in context, the remark about the holiday being coutesy of the US military (of that time) makes perfect sense

I never saw any of your remarks as derogatory towards the U.S. military, just factually off about the existence of an American standing army at the time of the Declaration of Independence. I've seen Jane Fonda speak abusively about the U.S. military, and thankfully sir, you aren't any Jane Fonda.

Long live the present resurgence of State Sovereignty.

[Southern Cal]

Please disregard comments I made about current policial topics and references to anti-war protestors. These comments are irrelevant to the topic at hand and contributed to confusion about what points were being made concerning the discussion.

[dale beasley]

Please disregard comments I made about current policial topics and references to anti-war protestors. These comments are irrelevant to the topic at hand and contributed to confusion about what points were being made concerning the discussion.

Lawrence,

First you do not have to disregard any comment you made. They were not made to casue trouble. deletion - THP Yes it was the citizen soldier that won our Independence. But it is the standing Army that has maintained it.

Dale Beasley

[FloridaConfederate]

Lawrence,

First you do not have to disregard any comment you made. They were not made to casue trouble. deletion - THP Yes it was the citizen soldier that won our Independence. But it is the standing Army that has maintained it.
Dale Beasley

So Dale you dont agree with Lawrence ?

He is saying in his post that historically speaking, Colonial independence was not won by the citizen solider, but rather was and could only be brought about by Washington's "Centralized" Army, thusly the common citizen is impotent in his ability to withstand tyrannical injustice. I have trouble reconciling this with the Federalist Papers and the subsequent drafting, execution and ratification the Constitution with respect to the militia and standing armies.



Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Pvt Schnapps]

I like the Fourth of July more than any other holiday because no one expects you to buy a 4th of July card or a 4th of July present, it has no religious overtones, and you can have the family over if you want but it's just as common to get together with the neighbors.

More than that, you get to eat barbecue, drink beer, and blow things up.

It's as American a holiday as you can get!

I love this country!

[sbl]

According to John Adams we know how to celebrate it as well even if he was talking about July 2.

[Julio C. Zangroniz]

Folks,
Please take this "outsider's" point of view with a grain of salt.
As someone who was born and raised in another country, and then came here (legally, I might add) and grew to be a loyal American... we have the VERY BEST COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!
This is my CHOSEN COUNTRY, and I am willing to die for the privilege.
Yes, our country has a lot of things that it is criticized for, both here and elsewhere. BUT please notice the FACT that a LOT of people are risking DEATH to come and live here.
How many other countries in the ENTIRE WORLD can make the same claim?
NOT many.
I am proud to be an American, and each of you should be, too.
God Bless America.
Julio

[sbl]

I'd leave out all the "god" stuff but I feel the same. Talk to some new Americans sometime who took the test. It's an education.

[FloridaConfederate]

Julio great insight.

However, on the topic of the thread....

Do you think this country was developed on the backs of free citizens coming to arms against a tyrannical colonial oppressor ?


or

Was and only could have been done with a Standing Army under centralized control ?

For me and the point in my post is that it was the citizen soldier with the natural right to bear arms against his oppressor as personified, at least in my mind's eye however incorrectly, by the image of the Gadsen Flag, Mintuteman, etc.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[flattop32355]

I'll throw in on this one:

In the United States, from the very beginning until at least WWII (and quite possibly 'til today), we have relied upon citizen soldiers to form the bulk of our standing army in times of peril. These soldiers are not part of a professional military, but come at need when the country calls.

The cadre of professional soldiers in this country has generally remained quite small, up until modern times. Even then, it has required the activation of reservists to round out the numbers needed to accomplish our military goals.

I may be splitting hairs, but I do not equate our standing army as being all professional soldiers in this country, except in times of relative peace. It is often times much more than that.

So, in the end, I tend to agree with both points of view: Our security and peace of mind is directly related to those professional soldiers and those citizen soldiers who make up our armed forces as needed.

It also owes much to the private citizens who lent, and lend, their support to our troops.

I don't see it as an either/or issue.

[28thNY]

Folks,
Please take this "outsider's" point of view with a grain of salt.
As someone who was born and raised in another country, and then came here (legally, I might add) and grew to be a loyal American... we have the VERY BEST COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!
This is my CHOSEN COUNTRY, and I am willing to die for the privilege.
Yes, our country has a lot of things that it is criticized for, both here and elsewhere. BUT please notice the FACT that a LOT of people are risking DEATH to come and live here.
How many other countries in the ENTIRE WORLD can make the same claim?
NOT many.
I am proud to be an American, and each of you should be, too.
God Bless America.
Julio

No offence, but that's all modern politics. As is the following in response... Apologies modmins, please delete as you see fit.

Also, minor point, with reference to the highlighted section above... How about most of Europe? Thousands of people try to make the crossing to either Italy or the Canaries each year and many do not make it...

How about Australia? Despite their strict immigration rules, people are still trying to make that crossing for the right to live in a concentration camp on a small island off the coast.

Nationalism and Patriotism... It's a fine line.

[FloridaConfederate]

The green eyes are all a' glowin, ere one is here....DoubleB nailed it.

In before:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii312/floridaconfederate/FarmerBrown2.jpg


CJR
TPA<FLA

[28thNY]

The green eyes are all a' glowin, ere one is here....DoubleB nailed it.

In before:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii312/floridaconfederate/FarmerBrown2.jpg


CJR
TPA<FLA

Well, I expect it to be deleted, but there you go. :)

If not modern politics, what response is expected to modern politics? I suppose I could try the "He started it!" argument.

[Southern Cal]

So Dale you dont agree with Lawrence ?

He is saying in his post that historically speaking, Colonial independence was not won by the citizen solider, but rather was and could only be brought about by Washington's "Centralized" Army, thusly the common citizen is impotent in his ability to withstand tyrannical injustice. I have trouble reconciling this with the Federalist Papers and the subsequent drafting, execution and ratification the Constitution with respect to the militia and standing armies.



Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

With respect sir, my remarks from previous posts are being misrepresented. I didn't say any of the above. I'm saying that both the armed bodies of the American militia as well as trained regiments of the Continental Army, that is, that formal standing army of that time, as established by the Continental Congress, were ALL citizen soldiers. They ALL contributed to the ultimate victory over British forces; the militia to a lesser degree, the trained Contintental Army line infantry units, to a greater degree.

In context of the historical records at that time, your use of the term "Centralized Army" in place of "standing army", is only a different term for the same thing. When a distinction is made between terms that in truth, really mean the same thing, then the distinction becomes meaningless. While a useful tool of debate to argue from a false dichotomy, it's still a false dichotomy.

Please sir, don't put words in my mouth. Thank you. I never said the common citizen is impotent in his ability to withstand tyrannical injustice. I would argue otherwise; merely that the occasion for such a need hasn't arisen. If you cannot reconcile a point of view that I never expressed, with your personal interpretation of the Federalist Papers and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution concerning militia and standing armies, then you have set up a straw man argument, entirely off of your original assertion at the beginning posts on this thread, that there existed no standing US Armed at the time of the Declaraton of Independence and by extension, no martial connection, therfore negating the individual's post about the 4th of July being courtesy of the US military. That was your assertion.

The factual record shows the existence of a standing US military force, formally established in 1775, by the Continental Congress, a year before the Declaration of Independence. Since this force, as well as the bodies of armed militia, forced the British to recognize the Declaration of Independence, a martial connection to the 4th of July is clearly established. While a civil holiday, there wouldn't even be an Independence Day, without the martial connection. The Declaration of Independence itself was not a sufficient condition for actual independence from Britain while the matial connection was a necessary condition for independence. Simply put, the most effective military method used to effect independence was the standing regular army of that particular time, shooting enough British soldiers that the British government finally came to terms.

To say the 4th of July is courtesy of the US military is, is correct in context. That our military has protected our right to celebrate Indepedence Day at several points in our history, is of course correct. The action figure in defiant posture is very cool. I used to cast my own and paint them. The message though looks more like back-stepping instead of addressing one's own assertions near the beginning of the thread.

[FloridaConfederate]

With respect sir, my remarks from previous posts are being misrepresented. I didn't say any of the above. .

Wait not so fast. You said:


The Continental Congress didn't get the British to leave by waving the Declaration of Independence at them. The historic record shows militia units certainly did their bit, but it was the regular Continental Army soldiers and allied professional French infantry who shot and killed enough British and their hirelings that the British finally were convinced that further hostilites were fruitless and eventually signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

which led me to say:


He is saying in his post that historically speaking, Colonial independence was not won by the citizen solider, but rather was and could only be brought about by Washington's "Centralized" Army, thusly the common citizen is impotent in his ability to withstand tyrannical injustice.

There is a big difference between the common citizen, many with their own arms coming under unified command and control in an organized force to repel the Crown

and

the modern, post-Continential Congress military that serves at the whim of the Politico and can used against the very armed citizen and the concept of the well regulated militia save for the protection of the thin veil of Posse Comitatus


Double B nailed it.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Southern Cal]

Wasn't speaking of a modern army. Clearly, the reference was to the Continental Army, the American standing army of the time, and their French allies, also units of a standing army.

Looks like you're more interested in scoring points than standing by your original assertions about there being no standing US military at the time of the Declaration of Independence and therefore no martial connection to the holiday. I'm not very good at games. You win.

[FloridaConfederate]

Looks like you're more interested in scoring points than standing by your original assertions about there being no standing US military at the time of the Declaration of Independence and therefore no martial connection to the holiday. I'm not very good at games. You win.



There is a big difference between the common citizen, many with their own arms coming under unified command and control in an organized force to repel the Crown

and

the modern, post-Continential Congress military that serves at the whim of the Politico and can used against the very armed citizen and the concept of the well regulated militia save for the protection of the thin veil of Posse Comitatus.

Its that simple, as I posted above. It wasnt directed as a slight to your or anyone's military service or the protection I presently appreciate by virtue of their blood. I see the military as the defenders against foreign invaders and attacks against our national interests.

Outside of foreign foes, on the domestic front, I believe the Freedoms I enjoy at home are derived from and protected by the same citizen protection and in the same spirit as my "Minuteman" ancestors. If history is indicator of despotic or oherwise anti-Freedom progressions, I beleive the "Federal Military" can be turned on me or you in a snap depending on the political winds. I do not believe they were a standing army prior to the Declaration in that they did not serve the will of a centralized politcal body and for no other purporse than the defeat of the Crown.

It is a simple point, I am sorry if I offended your service or misrepresented history. If I could buy you a cyber beer I would. Really.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Southern Cal]

Sir Florida Reb',

I don't feel slighted or offended at all. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of certian historical facts. Besides, looking at that photo you posted above, I think you have a nice "figure", figuratively speaking. However, the curiously familar but fierce looking face is someone I wouldn't want to have as my enemy.

Here's some grist for you. Unlike the Civil War era militia and "national guard", The current National Guard web site actually boasts that one half of all U.S. Army combat units are drawn from the National Guard and that the National Guard is fully integrated with the U.S. Army. 20-years service in the National Guard also means a federal military pension starting at age 60. This doesn't sound like the militia described in the Constituton as many 2nd Amendment revisionists assert. Recruiting commercials don't mention that a person is really joining the U.S. Army when they enlist in the National Guard. I gladly served in the regular Army, but facts is facts. Until the U.S. Supreme Court says different, the militia is still comprised of all able body men of a certain age.

P.S. So the paint doesn't easily flake off of those soft plastic figurines, painting or spraying them first with a light coat of varnish makes the paint stick.

YOS,

[FloridaConfederate]

Lawrence if others in this thread knew how to disagree as gentlemanly as you there would be far less arse millinery on the internets.

I think we may agree on more than we might think.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Southern Cal]

Sir,

Thank you for the kind remarks. A robust discussion is a good thing, but good manners and polite demeanor promote entry by observers into discussions they might otherwise avoid. I've wrote bloopers but I manned up and made amends when brought to my attention. I just don't see the point of getting all worked up in a heaval over a war that ended in 1865. Even the President of the Confederacy, before he died, urged his fellow southerners to put aside all sectional feelings and come together as one great nation. If it was good enough for Jeff Davis to forgive, after being held after the war, in "durance vile" inside a casemate "dungeon" at Fort Monroe, then it's good enough for me.

For historical purposes, most every day I hoist the same patriotic snake flag with the stripes that flies over current Navy vessels while deployed. That one's getting worn so I'll soon have to put in service another patriotic yellow snake flag for awhile. Since this is the Republic of Kalifornicate, and since I live near a public park, certain famous historical flags are deemed polically incorrect by pacifists, even on private property. This can result in non-violent flat tires, peaceful scratched paint, kindly smeared mud, or non-confrontational written remonstrances full of barnyard words left on the windshield. It's strange how these modest folks, so tolerant and inclusive in their nature, won't ever come to my front door to make their gentle spirited representations. So, I also have a discreet historical blue patriotic flag with a big white star in the middle for special occasions. On holidays and always on my rear windshield I still display the national colors.

[flattop32355]

Since this is the Republic of Kalifornicate, and since I live near a public park, certain famous historical flags are deemed polically incorrect by pacifists, even on private property. This can result in non-violent flat tires, peaceful scratched paint, kindly smeared mud, or non-confrontational written remonstrances full of barnyard words left on the windshield. It's strange how these modest folks, so tolerant and inclusive in their nature, won't ever come to my front door to make their gentle spirited representations. So, I also have a discreet historical blue patriotic flag with a big white star in the middle for special occasions. On holidays and always on my rear windshield I still display the national colors.

Plankmaker needs to pull up that lovely video about the Berkeley Marine recruiting center again.

Perfect example of the "tolerant" being intolerant again.

[sbl]

"Perfect example of the "tolerant" being intolerant again. "


Then again Popeye was never looking for trouble. "That's all I kin stands! I cansk stands no more!"

[sbl]

Wow!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Marine_Corps_Recruiting_Center_controvers y

Is this the video?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-10-2008/marines-in-berkeley

[Southern Cal]

The intolerance of tolerance indeed.

I've heard this gentleman speak on several occasions and he has his thoughts on tolerance so well organized that even I can understand him.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5359

[flattop32355]

Is this the video?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-10-2008/marines-in-berkeley

Yup. That be it.

[sbl]

Riggle is a hoot and being a Marine gives him "street cred" as the young folks say. He did some pretty good broadcasts from Iraq for the Daily Show (as did Stephen Colbert for his show.) To give you an idea about Riggle, he is friends with Janine Garafalo and physically protected her from a talk radio host and crew.

The US Military is not the bad guys, nor is it something unto itself as in some countries.

We need folks like "Code Pink" and the "Tea Baggers" to go a little too far so that things change just enough.

[Southern Cal]

Facts is facts,

There was indeed a US standing army of citizen soldiers at the time of the Declaration of Independence. However large or small it might have been, and however well it was trained or equipped, the size and condition of the standing US Army continually and dramatically fluctuated throughout U.S. history.

http://www.army.mil/birthday/234/pictures/POTUS_Army_Birthday_09_large.jpg

http://www.army.mil/birthday/234/pictures/234_B_Day.jpg

Congress established a standing army of citizen soldiers, facts is facts.

[sbl]

Perhaps American's attitude about standing armies was expressed by Paul Revere when he shouted : "The Regulars are out!!" In the context of April 1775, not a good thing.

[Southern Cal]

Correct. That's why we needed our own trained "regulars" armed in the same fashion as the British and their hirelings. The difference is the standing Contintental Army of 1775, later called the United States Army, is that it is "our" army of citizen soldiers, not the King's army, or foreign mercenaries, or lower classes pressed into service. The U.S. Army has always been under the purview and control of "our" elected civil government; not a King, or a Junta, or a dynasty, or the ruling class, as in many other nations. Both Federal and Confederate armies of citizen soldiers answered to the civil authorities.

[dale beasley]

There will always be a need for a standing army.

1 To detour any foreign aggression.
2. To detour unlawful aggression of a sovereign nation.
3. To Keep the Citizens of a Nation at bay.
4. To be at the deposal of the President of the United States.

there are alot of debates about the above, but the bottom line is, we still have a Standing Army, and any great nation will.

[FloridaConfederate]

There will always be a need for a standing army.

1 To detour any foreign aggression.
2. To detour unlawful aggression of a sovereign nation.
3. To Keep the Citizens of a Nation at bay.
4. To be at the deposal of the President of the United States.

there are alot of debates about the above, but the bottom line is, we still have a Standing Army, and any great nation will.

LOL. Wut ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

Unless we were on two differnt sheets of music. Th orginal post was wishing eveyone a happy 4th...complements of the United States Military...then there was a discussion in regards to a standing army...and the dissagreement of what I said. We have what we have only becasue of a Standing Army. I had a misspelled word, I have gotton spoiled on my laptop at home.

[FloridaConfederate]

There will always be a need for a standing army.

1 To detour any foreign aggression.
2. To detour unlawful aggression of a sovereign nation.
3. To Keep the Citizens of a Nation at bay.
4. To be at the deposal of the President of the United States.

there are alot of debates about the above, but the bottom line is, we still have a Standing Army, and any great nation will.

No. This part.

For clairity sake:

1. To "detour" any foreign aggression against the US ? Of course.

2. To "detour" unlawful aggression of sovereign nation. Explain more clearly.

3. To Keep the Citizens of the US Nation at bay ? Not according to my Constitution pal, this is what started you and I down this path of unfettered ugliness... your part and support in US Troops being used against civilians at the behest of the present administration and their global priorities.

4. To be at the disposal of the President of the United States ? See #3 above. Pack a lunch and lots of body bags.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

No. This part.

For clairity sake:

1. To detour any foriegn agression against the US ? Of course.

2. To detour unlawful aggression of sovereign nation. Explain more clearly.

3. To Keep the Citizens of the US Nation at bay ? Not according to my Constitution pal, this is what started you and I down this path of unfetterted ugliness... your part and support in US Troops being used against civilians at the behest of the present adminstration and their global priorities.

4. To be at the deposal of the President of the United States ? See #3 above. Pack a lunch and lots of body bags.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida



I don't know what you mean about the Present Administration against citizens. Unless he orders it and the need is there. Then more power to him.
Every Commission Officer swears an oath, and part of that Oath is to the President of the United States. He is the one that commissions us.

If you are going to discuss body bags, then go back to the begining part of the war.

Think of the civil unrest if we did not have a Standing Army. I can not imanage not haveing a Standing Army. I would be bad.

I did like the way you once compared me to a Nazi then a Bob Dylan Liberal.

Chris I ask you a simple question ....who is the most powerful two men in the world?

[FloridaConfederate]

I don't think you swear an oath to the President. I think you swear to uphold the Constitution. You are bound to uphold the lawful commands of the President only to the extent as setforth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Who do I think the most powerful men in the world are ?

One is not a men. Mrs. Lawson.
Two..Larry Pope CEO Smithfield Meat Products in Va.

Why for is that ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[PMB1861]

Every Commission Officer swears an oath, and part of that Oath is to the President of the United States. He is the one that commissions us.

Mr. Beasley,

You should review the Officer's Oath. I find your understanding of it incorrect.

U.S. Army Officer's Oath


“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

I served in the Marines so this is included for additional illustration

U.S. Marine Officer Oath of Office


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

An Officer's Commission does include the words "obey the orders of the President" but I don't have one readily availabe to quote from.


Think of the civil unrest if we did not have a Standing Army. I can not imanage not haveing a Standing Army. I would be bad.

I also find that statement disconcerting coming from a Serviceman. Civil unrest in the United States is handled by its Civil Authorities. With the few exceptions (the Civil War being the most noteable), the Regular Armed Forces of the United States are specifically not used to enforce obedience to civil authority.

[sbl]

"Every Commission Officer swears an oath, and part of that Oath is to the President of the United States. He is the one that commissions us."


Dale, are you sure of this? I just found the oath which I believe is current.

http://military.plainfacts.net/military-ceremonies/military-oath-of-office-for-commissioned-officers/


Military Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers

All commissioned officers in the United States military must make the following oath of office when they are appointed in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps:

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”


Funny, the oath is referenced on an anti-"the current administration" web site saying that officers aren't swearing loyalty to "that one."

I like Bob Dylan. :)

[sbl]

Wow! Several of us are on this! I missed by 3 minutes!

[FloridaConfederate]

Look at the :45 past the hour simultaneous postin awesomeness.

Owe you an ICEE.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

Mr. Beasley,

You should review the Officer's Oath. I find your understanding of it incorrect.

U.S. Army Officer's Oath



I served in the Marines so this is included for additional illustration

U.S. Marine Officer Oath of Office



An Officer's Commission does include the words "obey the orders of the President" but I don't have one readily availabe to quote from.



I also find that statement disconcerting coming from a Serviceman. Civil unrest in the United States is handled by its Civil Authorities. With the few exceptions (the Civil War being the most noteable), the Regular Armed Forces of the United States are specifically not used to enforce obedience to civil authority.

Peter, it's the fear factor. I am just recalling Katrina and how it went to **** soon after the storm.

We were discussing this very topic this weekend at BA, most of us thought we swore an oath to the Constitution and The President....one of those questions that make you go?....mmmmm? I just can't remember?

[FloridaConfederate]

We were discussing this very topic this weekend at BA, most of us thought we swore an oath to the Constitution and The President....one of those questions that make you go?....mmmmm? I just can't remember?


There is a cadre of officers in the US Army that doesnt know who or what they have sworn an oath to ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

Wow! Several of us are on this! I missed by 3 minutes!

Scott, man this discussion was debated over lunch...big time, I'm glad you like Dylan...what are yall talking aboput the Several on what and in three mins.

[dale beasley]

There is a cadre of officers in the US Army that doesnt know who or what they have sworn an oath to ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

NO, don't start your shit, just asking a simple question....becasue the wording is...well, the last administration proved that. , we were just reviewing it...you know some of us have forgotten and have boots older than you.

An Officer's Commission does include the words "obey the orders of the President" but I don't have one readily availabe to quote from

[dale beasley]

The issue is grey...my point...

[sbl]

Dale, After I looked up the oath and posted it I saw that several, well two, other guys commented just before me.

[plankmaker]

Scott,

I've glanced at this thread on and off, and for some reason, all of this reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[sbl]

Dale,

This is different...I was looking at the Commissioned officer's Oath.


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


(Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase "So help me God" is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. While federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional (see Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code), military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18 ) makes the portion "So help me God" optional.)

[FloridaConfederate]

NO, don't start your shit, just asking a simple question....becasue the wording is...well, the last administration proved that. , we were just reviewing it...you know some of us have forgotten and have boots older than you.

An Officer's Commission does include the words "obey the orders of the President" but I don't have one readily availabe to quote from

Its not a simple question, Sir. It is an oath you swore to uphold and um not forgot I am pretty sure. You are to obey the orders of the President subject to the terms of Uniform Code of Military Justice. If your oath is giving you interpretive and retention issues, I wont expect you to understand the bounds which are set upon you by the UCoMJ.




Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

hahahahah!!

[FloridaConfederate]

Now Chis, What experience do you have with the Miitary? Well you and I know.

What is my exepreince ? Do tell ?


The question that was a general discussion at a lunch table was a very good question. Goes back to the begining of the War. And how the War was handled in the begining. So, it was a good question and had many the same questions and comments that these Gentlemen have voiced today.

No Army officer questioning or uncertain of their oath is not good discussion at lunch table. Its scary.

Deletion - THP; removal of deleted material


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[7thNJcoA]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


thats the oath of enlistment... can someone close this thread already I mean its getting a little ridiculous...

[FloridaConfederate]

can someone close this thread already I mean its getting a little ridiculous...


There is always the option of not opening and posting in it, especially since you posted what has already been posted.

But more specifically, I think the subject matter: US Military personnel pledging an oath to a political administration and a willingness to go against the citizens of this nation isn't ridiculous at all. Mr. Beasley and I have debated this before. I personally know of no other service personal, let alone officers with this understanding and mindset.

You served in OIF.....did you serve out of loyalty to GWB or the Nation / Constitution ?

Your thoughts about being depolyed against US civilians out of oath to the President is what ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

The quesition that was discussed at the lunch table yesterday concerned the right of the president to call up troops and send them into a sovergn nation. This is no different of a discussion and or debate that has not been discussed over-there. Our questions and statements reflected the conversation yesterday.

Which brought up another question...would you follow your Commander in Chief or Military Commanders....just open discussion. Nothing underlying... just discussion....and thinking outside the box.

deletion - THP; getting personal

But it would be ok to close it as far as I am concern.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I propose a toast to the regular army of the United States, first brought to the full flower of effectiveness by Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, Freiherr von Steuben, a great gay officer from the era of "don't know what to ask, wouldn't know who to tell."

I mean, since we're already off topic...

[dale beasley]

Mr Shaffer,

We aren't asking and we aint telling...;)

[dale beasley]

Scott,

I've glanced at this thread on and off, and for some reason, all of this reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN



LOL....looks like New Orleans did...not really laughing at that part, I loved that movie.

[FloridaConfederate]

I propose a toast to the regular army of the United States, first brought to the full flower of effectiveness by Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, Freiherr von Steuben, a great gay officer from the era of "don't know what to ask, wouldn't know who to tell."

I mean, since we're already off topic...


Freddie, as his pards called him, would never leave his buddies behind.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

My 20 year old son was surprised at the content of that movie. He thought his generation invented irreverent humor.


New Orleans!!?? Katrina tracked right over Rockport , Miss. didn't it?

[7thNJcoA]

There is always the option of not opening and posting in it, especially since you posted what has already been posted.

But more specifically, I think the subject matter: US Military personnel pledging an oath to a political administration and a willingness to go against the citizens of this nation isn't ridiculous at all. Mr. Beasley and I have debated this before. I personally know of no other service personal, let alone officers with this understanding and mindset.

You served in OIF.....did you serve out of loyalty to GWB or the Nation / Constitution ?

Your thoughts about being depolyed against US civilians out of oath to the President is what ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida



Honestly I joined on Aug 11th 2001 and wanted to go to college so I figured the Marines was the best training just in case war did break out and man did it. I served 2 combat tours and didn't fight for America, apple Pie or whatever I fought for my Marines next to me so they can make it home ok. You volunteer to serve your country but you fight for each other something most people never understand. If that means my life or yours I would gladly take either! You should be talking to Generals and politicians not average fighting men because we don't care about causes much. Ask any true combat vet out there and they will tell you why they fight so hard and do the things they do and if they say otherwise I am inclined to think they are full of it! Now when it comes to fighting against US civilians I would never follow an unlawful order to target civilians and attack them for no purpose but if I was fighting against a group taking up arms to overthrow the government that is a different story. Now if the military became a dictatorship I would gladly fight to restore the power to the people as the constitution dictates. I do not know where this is going but I get a sense that servicemen are being targeted for their devotion to their nation and willingness to if need be take up arms against a domestic enemy in this post and I have to say its appalling and despicable but it is your right as a free American. So if that is the purpose shame on you and if not I apologize for misinterpreting it.

[FloridaConfederate]

I do not know where this is going but I get a sense that servicemen are being targeted for their devotion to their nation and willingness to if need be take up arms against a domestic enemy in this post and I have to say its appalling and despicable but it is your right as a free American. So if that is the purpose shame on you and if not I apologize for misinterpreting it.

No Sir. Respectfully, your sense is incorrect. Read it again. A serviceman is being stood up to (yet again) for his repeated assertions and interpretations of military control over the US populace, not out of devotion to the nation..but his oath and devotion to a President or political party (of any flavor) There is big difference.

You take an oath to defend the Nation and the Constitution and to follow the orders of the President provided the orders are compliant with those conditions found in the UCoMJ. Mr. Beasley has stated yet again he feels he serves "at the disposal of President to keep the Nation at Bay".

As to keeping the Nation at bay or the military taking up arms against a domestic enemy, your fellow Marine asserts correctly earlier in the thread that it is indeed a very line between Law Enforcement and military controls under Posse Comitatus and history is practically devoid of instances of this happening.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Southern Cal]

Some of the points made about the military oath don't seem quite as clear to me after reading the discussion.

In the United States the authority for administering the oath to any military service member is derived from the sovereign power of the United States, established by the Constitution. A service member swears an oath of allegiance to the United States, not to any individual. The (civilian) President, as Comander-in-chief, is at the top of the military chain of comand, whose orders are obeyed as any other individual in a position of higher military authority.

Generally, a commission is simply a type of formal governent document.

Military officers are "commissioned" by the U.S. Congress on the advice of the President. Non commisioned officers are rated, and Warrant officers are granted warrants to their grade. Basic training topic, early 1970's.

U.S. Army veteran, 4th Infantry Division.

[7thNJcoA]

well ok thank you for clearing that up. I must say in no way would I ever EVER! Not uphold the constitution and if that means going against the CIC in an event he/she tries to go against it then I will absolutely do so! I must say that most problems in the US the federal and local law enforcement can and will handle.

[FloridaConfederate]

well ok thank you for clearing that up. I must say in no way would I ever EVER! Not uphold the constitution and if that means going against the CIC in an event he/she tries to go against it then I will absolutely do so! I must say that most problems in the US the federal and local law enforcement can and will handle.

I knew with clarity we were on the same page.

Thanks for your service to our NATION.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[dale beasley]

My 20 year old son was surprised at the content of that movie. He thought his generation invented irreverent humor.


New Orleans!!?? Katrina tracked right over Rockport , Miss. didn't it?

ya Scott, we lost about 30000 worth of pine trees and were without lights for two weeks, but it could always be worst.

[PMB1861]

Mr. Beasley,

Frankly a lot of what you post concerning the purpose of the Modern U.S. Military in these Civil War Reenacting Forums crosses lines of personal ethics and appropriate public discussion that I’ve been taught as a Marine and that I believe in. I think it reflects poorly on you and by inference upon all veterans. The majority of our nation's citizens that haven’t served in the US Military can look at it and infer that all Veterans think the same way you do. Although Chris and you have known animosity between you, I do agree with his general point that your posts about the role of the Modern U.S. Military come scarily close to advocating a Police State using armed might to impose it. I hope to keep this discourse civil and I apologize for it’s length.


There will always be a need for a standing army…
3. To Keep the Citizens of a Nation at bay.
4. To be at the deposal of the President of the United States.

Those two “reasons” you posted for the need of a standing army are scary to many people.

In number three you implicitly advocate the need for a standing army to restrain or "keep at bay" citizens, this is distasteful to most people I know who cherish their Liberty. If there ever comes a point where the U.S. Army is walking the streets of America and restraining people from their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness then we are no longer the nation the Founder’s envisioned. I am not saying that there should be anarchy in the streets, I do whole-heartedly believe that internal policing of criminal and disruptive activities is the role of civil authority enacted at the lowest government level possible and directly responsible to the citizens that are subject to that policing. The standing military forces of the United States have the role to defend us from those who do our nation harm and to take the fight to those foreign places that harbor and sustain those who do us harm.

In number four you explicitly state that the role of the Standing Army is to be at the ‘disposal’ of the President. The President is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html)). The Congress has the following powers in regards Military Forces, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” (Section 1 of Article 8 of the Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html)). Nowhere in the Constitution is it implied that Standing Armies are at the ‘disposal’ of the President. There is additional law, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the War Powers Act of 1973, concerning the use of Military Force and both of those Acts are attempts to curb the excess of Presidential use of the Military in contravention of Congress’ Powers as outlined in the Constitution and the subservience of the Military to civil authority which is ultimately the citizen’s authority. The separation of powers in the Constitution at least provides the mechanism for the citizens of the US to restrain the government from needless expenditure of blood and treasure, if only by the means of voting the President and Congress out of office if they choose to disregard the will of the citizens and prosecute wars the citizens deem unnecessary or unjust.


I don't know what you mean about the Present Administration against citizens. Unless he orders it and the need is there. Then more power to him.

I am trying to deconstruct this statement for my understanding. I don’t know if I have it right, but here it goes. In your statement, you advocate that if a President decides it is necessary to direct Military Force against US Citizens then it is OK if there is a ‘need’. The notion that a serving officer accepts such a premise without precondition scares people. It bothers me greatly. I have had serious discussions with other veterans and many citizens concerning the role of the Military and its recent applications. I can personally say that I have never received an order (in three combat tours and a total of 17 years of service so far) that I thought was unlawful or not in keeping with the U.S. Constitution. I also say, that if there is ever a question in my mind the lawfulness of an order or its constitutionality, I will write and submit my resignation.

When you write such things, it makes veterans like me cringe with your wild and unfounded generalities about the proper role of military forces and their lawful subservience to civil authority. I shudder to think what many citizens think of it and I hope my discourse here has set some of their fears aside as to the mindset of serving officers.

I have said my peace on this subject and I hope it has provided some useful information, my apologies to those who read it for its length.

[dale beasley]

I hate we disagree, but I respect you for how you feel. you have earned it. I guess the reason I said it is that I believe it is true, doesn't have to be how I think or how I feel...For if there is ever another need to declare Marshal Law (sp?), as the need in New Orleans, Katrina, because New Orleans would have bothered you greatly. We can talk constitution till the cows come out of the ponds, due to the heat...., but the bottom line is that we have order due to our possible use of our Military. It certainly is not because of the corrupt State, and Local law enforcement. You think the police and the thugs stop looting in New Orleans because of the NOPD? I read your statement several times, you have some very good points, the standing military is there to protect from foreign invaders, you are right. But it is also there to protect us from ourselves.

I find these forums entertaining. I find the many in them even more entertaining as well. Without doing Jack Nicholson justice in a Few Good Men, He could not be more right when he said "you can't handle the truth". But I will not be calling any Code Reds., don't worry.

But Animal House was a classic.

[FloridaConfederate]

a) With civilian raw enforcement providing command, control and arrest power.


No Asians were harmed in the typing of this.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Mint Julep]

Dale,

Your commanding officer in NOLA says it was NOT martial law. Shouldn't he know?

Link to article (http://www.slate.com/id/2125584/nav/tap1/)


What Is Martial Law?
And is New Orleans under it?
By Keelin McDonell
Posted Friday, Sept. 2, 2005, at 5:04 PM ET

Military presence? Yes. Martial law? No.On Tuesday reports began circulating that New Orleans officials had put the flood-ravaged city under martial law. The attorney general's office of Louisiana quickly issued a denial. Confusion persisted, however, after White House press secretary Scott McClellan told a group of journalists on Wednesday that "martial law has been declared in Mississippi and Louisiana." Yesterday National Guard Lt. Gen H. Steven Blum sought to set the record straight, saying, "This is not, as it has been erroneously reported, martial law." What is martial law? And who can declare it?

Martial law occurs when the military assumes police powers because local authorities and courts aren't functioning. Although the president usually imposes martial law, federal regulation allows for a "local commander" to do so "on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action." Federal armed forces are expected to relinquish these powers as soon as the local government is once again operable. During martial law, the military may arrest and try civilians, seize private property, and institute curfews, among other emergency powers.

In practice, however, martial law has been all but barred since the late 19th century. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set up military courts in several states in the South and Midwest. Many at the time felt that Lincoln had superseded his authority, and in 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement without congressional approval.

The Posse Comitatus Act effectively limited the president's power to declare martial law, but it did not entirely end it. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the governor of Hawaii called for martial law. President Roosevelt approved the motion, and the islands remained under military authority until October of 1944.

Additionally, governors can still request that the president immediately dispatch federal troops to assist police during emergencies. This happened during two notable instances of rioting in recent history—at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago and after the verdict was handed down in the Rodney King trial in Los Angeles in 1992. Neither instance constituted martial law (or violated Posse Comitatus) since federal troops were supporting and not supplanting local leaders.

During the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal, it was revealed that Oliver North had helped FEMA draft plans to overrule Posse Comitatus and impose martial rule if a major instance of civil unrest occurred. More recently, civil libertarians have worried that the military may become the de facto enforcer of law if the United States is attacked.

The Katrina relief effort includes military assistance, but it is not martial law. National Guard units are acting under the direction of governors, and federal troops are providing humanitarian relief. Neither of these violates Posse Comitatus. While martial law has not been imposed, a state of emergency has been declared in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, signaling that some civil liberties, such as the right to congregate, may be limited because of extreme conditions.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Ken Pence of Vanderbilt University, Harry Scheiber of the Berkeley School of Law, and Scott Sillman of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School.

[mississippian]

Dale,

I'm not in the military, a knee injury my sophomore year in college took care of that, but I have grown up around military officers and soldiers my whole life and have discussed this issue with them several times. I think it's safe to say that your opinions are a minority within the armed forces, and by discussing this in an open forum, you have crossed a line of unspoken military protocol, and therefore have put the armed forces in a bad light. Public discussions like this make for distrust among fellow officers and the public and breakdowns in discipline, good soldiers know to avoid both.

One thing I also know very well are politicians. And your statements are enough to make their blood run cold, no matter what party they belong to. The Senate in particular is known to frown on officers who talk politics in public. They want a non-political armed forces and will weed out those who rock the boat.

Will MacDonald

[FloridaConfederate]

Dale,

Your commanding officer in NOLA says it was NOT martial law. Shouldn't he know?

Link to article (http://www.slate.com/id/2125584/nav/tap1/)

Ouch ! Hope those boots dont have hobnails on them.

+ it is James Meredith not Medgar Evers.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida
History Type Mess

[tompritchett]

Judging by the number of Alerts, this thread has gotten out of control and, frankly at this time, I do not have the time to deal with it. Therefore I am closing it until later this evening when I do have time to go in and clean house. It is also likely that I will be touching base with the Provost and recommending time-outs for selected individuals based upon what I find. If that is the case, the thread will remain locked until those time-outs have been issued.

[tompritchett]

I have reviewed this thread and cleaned it up by initially editing over the top comments and then finally deleting posts in their entirety regardless of how valid some portions of the post may have been. However, this thread will not be re-opened.