U.S. Military Making Arrrests at G20?

by leavingwt 21 Replies latest social current

  • snowbird

    Posse Comitatus (power of the county) Act was enacted in 1878 to placate the South by withdrawing Federal troops after the hotly contested election of 1876.

    It supposedly prohibits the Armed Forces from interfering in States' law enforcement - except in extreme circumstances.

    I suppose the disturbance at the G-20 summit is an extreme circumstance.

    From USApresidents.org:

    Election of 1876

    However, as with all elections, the decision was left to the U.S. Electoral College , where the votes of four states were contested. In order to win, the candidates had to muster 185 votes: Tilden was short just one, with 184 votes, Hayes had 165, with 20 votes representing four states were contested. To make matters worse, three of these states (Florida , Louisiana , and South Carolina) were in the South, which was still under military occupation.

    After months of deliberation and bargaining, Southern Democrats were assured that if Hayes were elected, he would pull federal troops out of the south and end Reconstruction. In return, the Democrats agreed to a committee to determine the final outcome of the election. The committee, which consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats several of whom were also Supreme Court Justices, voted to give all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes. The Republicans justified this by claiming that the problem in these states was over who had the right to vote. The Democrats, on the other hand, felt that they had been robbed of the presidency, and called Hayes "Rutherfraud."

    In 2004, Chief Justrice of the United States Supreme Court William Rehnquist wrote of the Supreme Court Justices involved in the decision and concluded, “They may have tarnished the reputation of the Court, but they may also have saved the nation from, if not widespread violence, a situation fraught with combustible uncertainty.”


  • leavingwt

    In this photo, you can see that the Police are with the guys in fatigues.

  • SacrificialLoon
    AllTimeJeff: "I can tell you that these guys are nuts. I don't even know what the hell they are protesting."
    AllTimeJeff, they are protesting Globalization and its' effects.

    They're anarchists, you can tell by the red and black flag.

    One thing I noticed is that the one guy had polished black boots, I thought the military stopped with the boot polishing a while ago, or at least the army.

  • kurtbethel

    So, we have a clash of 'roided up camo clad military wannabes with doped up black clad hostile teabagger never beens.

    Sweet! Roll tape...

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    I am from Pittsburgh, and attend a university very close to where most of this stuff occurred.

    Many of these protestors came from out of town, and are itinerant "anarchists" (I use quotes, after speaking to many of them I had difficulty comprehending if they actually even comprehended what they believed in). Their actions bordered from the benign to the abusrd. For what its worth, I have my own sympathies with anarcho-syndicalism. These people give anarchy a bad name

    There was a march called the "peoples march" that faired better, with some respectable local groups participating.

    I hold no respect for those who came here just to cause trouble. Running through the streets, pushing dumpsters into lines of cops. The damage caused was minor, only about $50,000 worth. Still, most Pittsburghers had little sympathy for those who came here to fulfill their own narcissistic dreams of police state brutality.

    The "anarchists" arn't the only ones I have beef with. The local media was equally as absurd. At one point I heard a local radio station giving play by play details of a "protest" going on. They made it sound like all hell was breaking loose. Ten minutes into the broadcast you finally hear that they are tracking six people! Also, I feel that the way this was handeled by city officials was a bit suspect as well. It appeared that they wanted to use this as an opportunity to show off.

    BTW, I think that most of us here can sympathize with the protestors to some degree. Most of us used to also have a "persecution complex"!

  • Farkel

    It sounds like a mini-version of Chicago, 1968, and even the way the press reported it hasn't changed.

    Same band of idiots. Different generation. Nothing changes.


  • JRK

    I personally have meet some members of the multi-agency task force operating in Pittsburgh. For some reason the violent protesters only get videoed being arrested, not their actions that got them arrested.


  • JRK

    This is no violation of Posse Comitatus, as local officials and law enforcement requests these units as backup for special events.


  • frozen one
    frozen one

    The evil Bush/Cheney administration is at it again. That poor person, kidnapped by the military no less, will end up in a Haliburton built concentration camp for "questioning" before he is disappeared. Sickening...Huh? What? Bush is gone? It's all good then...

  • Uzzah

    I am working with the planners for the G8 (and now the G20) that is going to be happening in Canada June 2010.

    They have already received intel that these same groups of bussed in protesters will be coming here. Specific plans to accommodate peaceful demonstrations are already being made. There is a lot of resources being put in place to ensure demonstrations can happen.

    Of course planning for the 'not-so-paceful' is also happening.

    Due to jurisdictional issues it is too large for local cops only, Provincial (state) cops also need to be involved and Federal due to the presence of so many politicos. Then we also have CSIS (Canada's Intelligence Agency) plus law enforcement representatives from each of the attending Countries' secret service.

    So I put it out there, if protesters become violent, how should authorities respond? In the presence of violent protests, smoke grenades, pepper spray, the smartest move is to go in, make a quick apprehension, get to a place of safety, then go through the legalities of the arrest. Being surrounded by protesters is not the best time to be reading Miranda to an accused.

    Also it should be repeated that fatigues do not necessarily mean "military." I did some training as medical support to a non-military special joint force task force a few years back. My uniform as a medic for this task force was fatigues. Again there was no military involvement on this team.

    That said, due to the risk and threats of violence already received, it would be foolish not to include the military as a surge capacity to respond to large scale protests. However they would be acting in a 'deputy to local authorities' role not as the military.

    Protesters have every right to protest and authorities need to do as much as possible to ensure this is possible. I think people would be surprised as to how much time is dedicated to ensuring this happens. However once it becomes violent, or results in personal or property damage those rights are suspended until those threats are removed.

    If people keep it peaceful, there would not be an issue. There would be no need for arrests, tear gas etc. I put the onus where it belongs. Protestors need to keep it peaceful. If they don't authorities will need to respond (measured and according to law of course).

Share this