Analysis, Assessment, and Opinion Pertaining to Specific Government Actions
Opinion; Posted on: 2009-04-16 15:51:06 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
I offer this as an assessment of certain actions taken by the U.S.
Government (Majority Democrat Congress), and by the President of the
United States (POTUS), George W. Bush, and state my opinion pertaining
to the issues identified, here-in.
by Frederick W. Thomas, Dec. 2008
Three critical items to begin:
First, let me state that I do not think there will be rioting and blood in the streets, nor do I advocate a general rebellion against the U.S. Government for cause. I am not an anarchist. So far as I can tell, there is no cause to date that could, or should, precipitate a general uprising, and/or attempt to overthrow the government of this country. In any case, I am forsworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and hold this oath to be binding unto death;
Second, in furtherance to the U.S. Constitution, our founding fathers gave us a “Bill of Rights.” In that bill is the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to redress grievances committed, or perpetrated, by our government. That’s the legal Constitutional way, and our government has no choice but to permit redress of wrong; and,
Third, for our protection and individual defense, the founders also gave us the Second Amendment, the sole purpose of which was to grant the citizenry the right to defend themselves against the tyrannies of our own government, expressly by permitting ownership and the keeping of arms. I wouldn’t attempt, nor ever give council to attempt, to overthrow the U.S. Government; but, I sure as hell, would take up arms to defend me and mine against it, if it ever came to that.
Now, to this assessment, and my opinions.
What I bring to your attention are a series of laws enacted by the Congress, and actions taken by POTUS via executive order, and by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD), that cause me concern. My apprehension comes from the aggregate of these actions when taken together, and what I see as the potential for a true civic disaster in America as a result of these laws and presidential actions.
Journalist Geoff Metcalf pointed out in his article “The Unintended Consequences of Abrogating Posse Comitatus,” published in “News with Views,” dated: December 7, 2008, the consequences of the fed’s disregarding of the law, and the terrible results of one case where that took place, i.e., the Janet Reno massacre of the Branch Davidians. I would add another; the tragedy of the Randy Weaver family on Ruby Ridge when agents of the FBI and BATF broke the law, ended up killing Weaver’s wife and son, almost exclusively without cause. We’d all like to think these were aberrations, that events like those could never happen again, we’ve got safeguards in place now to protect us. We would also be wrong.
Public Law 109-364, the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by President Bush on October 17th, 2006, rescinded the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385) of 1878. The Defense Authorization Act is what the Geoff Metcalf piece that I sent out on the 10th was all about.
Posse Comitatus in American law and jurisprudence derives from English law. The literal translation of the Latin “posse comitatus”: A thing is said to be in “posse” when it may possibly be, and “comitatus” the power of the county, including the aid and attendance of all knights and other men above the age of fifteen within the county; but, ecclesiastical persons, and such as labour under any infirmity, are not compellable to attend. It is used where a riot is committed, a possession is kept on a forcible entry, or any force or rescue made contrary to the commandment of the Queen’s writ, or in opposition to the execution of justice.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
20 Stat. L.. 145, June 18, 1878
CHAP. 263 – An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.
From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
End Part One
News Source: Email