Army Investigating How and Why Troops Were Sent Into Alabama Town After Murder Spree

[JP2010]

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45206

The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.

“On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson,” Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.

“The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander’s inquiry--directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey.”

TRADOC is the headquarters command for Ft. Rucker.

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also determine whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” Perritt added. “Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.”

Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”--and the department was glad for the help.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls,” Stromenger said. “They weren’t here to police, let me make that clear. They were here to help with traffic and to control the crime scene--so people wouldn’t trample all over (it).”

Stromenger said the town needed help--calls had gone out to all police departments in the area.

“We only have a five-man police department,” he told CNSNews.com. “We had officers from all surrounding areas helping out. There were a lot of streets to be blocked off and there had to be someone physically there to block them off. That’s what these MPs were doing. I don’t think they were even armed. The troops helped keep nosy people away.”

But Stromenger said it wasn’t the Samson Police Department that called for the troops.

“I don’t know who called Fort Rucker. But someone did. They wouldn’t have been able to come if someone hadn’t,” he added.

Under Whose Authority?

The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley -- or by the request of President Obama, as required by law.

When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor’s office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley's spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.

No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House--or the Defense Department.

Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added.

In addition, there is the Insurrection Act of 1808, as amended in 2007, (Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code) under which the president can authorize troops “to restore order and enforce the laws of the United States” in an insurrection.

“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection,” the law states.

In 2007, Congress expanded the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as situations for which the president can authorize troops, provided that “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Congress has been clear that the use of U.S. troops for civilian police purposes is forbidden.

“One of the statutes explicitly says that military brigs can’t even be used to detain domestic criminals,” Rittgers said. “It really is supposed to be a black and white line.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, would have prosecuting authority, if any violation is deemed to have occurred. The Justice Department did not comment for this story.

Ft. Rucker, located in Southern Alabama, is the home of Army Aviation.

[MsDoodahs]

Hmmm....

This will be interesting to watch...if we're allowed to know what they find.

:eek:

[gls]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) says:


The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military forces to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to conventional law enforcement.[1 (https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETINTERNET/HOMEPAGES/AC/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/20a66345129fe3d885256e5b00571830/47c2b664085060fc85256e5b00576e6e/$FILE/Volume175Felicetti.pdf)]

Don't you just love semantics? If they use the right terminology, the law doesn't apply, even if the end result is the same (military forces patrolling U.S. streets).

[Sandra]

Was the shooter ex military?

[acptulsa]

Once upon a time, when I was younger, we had something we found very useful for situations like that one. We called it the 'National Guard'. It was very handy.

[UnReconstructed]

alex jones had the commander on his show the other day that sent the mopeds down there. he stated that he heard about the shooting on tv and he called the sheriff's dept and asked if there was anything that he could do. he stated they asked him for some relief so that their deputies and officers could leave their posts to eat and get some sleep. he stated that they simply manned the posts that were being manned by the civilian police/deputies until they returned.

i forget what he called it but he said there was some kind of an agreement between the civil law enforcement and the military that they would support each other if the situation made it necessary. that is the why... the how is, they got in their cars and drive down to samson.

not to hard to understand imo

was it legal? what does that matter? lol they violate their own laws everyday and this is no different. the gooberment is rogue.

[Sandra]

alex jones had the commander on his show the other day that sent the mopeds down there. he stated that he heard about the shooting on tv and he called the sheriff's dept and asked if there was anything that he could do. he stated they asked him for some relief so that their deputies and officers could leave their posts to eat and get some sleep. he stated that they simply manned the posts that were being manned by the civilian police/deputies until they returned.

i forget what he called it but he said there was some kind of an agreement between the civil law enforcement and the military that they would support each other if the situation made it necessary. that is the why... the how is, they got in their cars and drive down to samson.

not to hard to understand imo

was it legal? what does that matter? lol they violate their own laws everyday and this is no different. the gooberment is rogue.

The law says the military CAN'T assist in these matters, this is the whole reasonn our state NG exists. In these cases an inch will get you a mile. This is a practice in martial law.

[donnay]

Here is the transcript of Alex Jones interviewing the National Guard, Lt. Col. Scott Wile:

Transcript here- http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=92444.0

Synopsis: Lt. Col. Scott Wile, Director of Public Safety and Provost Marshall at Ft. Rucker, Alabama explains the military’s public role while assisting in law enforcement efforts at a shooting incident in southern Alabama on Mar 10th. It is unclear from this transcript whether the military was acting in a law enforcement role or not during the incident. Also of interest is LTC Wile’s response when asked about his oath to the Constitution, and, specifically, his personal beliefs about the Second Amendment. Much commentary about this topic by Jones and callers during the show.

//interview begins sometime into either the 2nd or 3rd hour of the 3/11/2009 broadcast//

LTC W: //cuts in// the incident took place and all of the local law enforcement from the state of Alabama responded. It happened in several different cities. It was a very ugly situation. And it was going to be a long, drawn out situation. So, here, in southern Alabama, we have mutual aid agreements with all of our local surrounding communities where they support us when we need help. We support them. We’ve had several natural disasters in the past such as a hurricane and a tornado. And we support each other in times of need. So, when this happened, we called down to one of the local police departments and offered our assistance. And they said, “Absolutely. We could use the military police.” So we went down. And all we did was provide a support role where we went…we took 20 MPs down there. The local law enforcement and the state law enforcement were establishing a cordon and taking care of the area. So we just provided support, went in. And allowed those…the state and local law enforcement folks to go and take a knee and drink water, go and get some food, just rest for a little while. We took their posts for them. And then when they came back, we moved on to other places to see where we could assist.

AJ: So did ah…so the Army contacted the police departments. Was this while the hour-long rampage was going on? Over 20 plus miles? Or did you contact them after they’d already…after he’d already killed himself?

LTC W: Yes, sir. It was after. After the event. When we realized that this was gonna be a major undertaking, then what I did was I called and offered my assistance. And the police chief took me up on it. And we called in the soldiers and drove down there.

AJ: Perhaps you can shed some more light because we’re getting conflicting stories. One sheriff’s deputy is reporting he had a fully automatic AK-47. Or was it semi-automatic? Or do you know?

LTC W: No sir. I don’t have any idea. I didn’t get involved in any part of the investigation or the active part of the law enforcement piece. All we provided was some security at some posts. And we provided relief forces for the guys that were working it.

AJ: Well being there in Alabama, you probably have a clearer picture of this…and then having your people on the ground…than we do. Boiling it down. What happened?

LTC W: Ah, yeah. Sir, I’ll tell you, you’re…what you’re hearing in the news is the same thing that we heard. I didn’t get involved in any part of the investigation. The true heroes were the local and state law enforcement from Alabama. And all we did was just go down there and…the exterior part of the cordon. We just relieved the guys that were blocking traffic and protecting the area.

AJ: Now, when you talk about mutual agreements with the county…previously, we hear about hurricanes or earthquakes or things like that. Certainly with the National Guard and things. But under Posse Comitatus…that still enforces in it to have the military out involved with law enforcement?

LTC W: Yes sir. And we don’t provide any kind of law enforcement role off of the installation. We didn’t go down there in a law enforcement role. What we did was we went down and just…we took our military police because we’re readily available.

AJ: I understand.

LTC W: …just went down and in a support role, we just took up posts for folks to rotate them so that we could…they could get out, get a place to go sit down, get something to eat, and then get back and take their posts.

AJ: No. I understand

LTC W: We didn’t provide any kind of law enforcement activity at all.

AJ: OK. The reason people ask that is we’ve all heard about NORTHCOM and the new 20 thousand troops for brigade homeland. I’m sure you’ve heard about that?

LTC W: Yes sir.

AJ: And how the Army War College says they are preparing for civil unrest. And so we see more and more reports about the Marines in California at DWI checkpoints and the Army assisting in drug interdiction and things like that inside the United States. So that’s…that’s why we were bringing that up because we see this happening more and more. Previously, if there was a shooting going on in Alabama, would the regular Army respond to that?

LTC W: Well sir. We wouldn’t respond to it. We would not…we would never respond off the installation in a law enforcement role. What we will provide though is a support function.

AJ: I understand.

LTC W: We will provide assistance to our partner community.

AJ: Sure. So military police though, setting up checkpoints, stopping traffic going through. That is not a law enforcement role?

LTC W: Yes sir. That is a law enforcement role. And that, we would not do here at Fort Rucker. I can’t speak for what NORTHCOM or the Army War College is trying to put together. But here at Fort Rucker, we would not do that.

AJ: No. No. But I’m looking at photographs of police blocking the…military police, Army military police blocking the road.

LTC W: Yes sir. All we were doing was enforcing the cordon.

AJ: I understand.

LTC W: And just directing traffic around it. We weren’t stopping anybody. We weren’t engaging anybody. We were just directing traffic.

AJ: OK. And what does…Fort Rucker is mainly Army aircraft support. Isn’t it?

LTC W: Yes sir. It’s the home of the Army aviation center.

AJ: Well, we know the folks in Alabama are great people. And we know the military are great people. It’s just there’s been big national debates about the larger and larger presence of military. And it was just interesting to see this in a report. We’re glad that more people weren’t killed. But sadly, 10 people is quite a lot. How’s the community taking this right now?

LTC W: Yeah. Sir, like everything else, the community is…they’re supporting each other. They’re taking care of the families of the affected people. And everybody’s pulling together to provide whatever it is that’s needed.

AJ: Well, in closing, we’re talking to Col. Scott Wile. Any thing else you think is important to add here, sir, or that you can tell us?

LTC W: Yeah. No sir. I’d just like to, one more time, reinforce that the true heroes in this situation were all of the state and local and federal law enforcement folks that are in the southern part of Alabama. And we were just happy to be able to provide them some assistance.

AJ: Now, specifically, they cornered him and then had a shootout and he killed himself? Or did they shoot him?

LTC W: Yes sir. I don’t have any of the facts of the case. Like I said, I was purely in a support role where we just went down and did what we could to help out.

AJ: Oh, so you were there yourself.

LTC W: Yes sir.

AJ: Wow. Were you on duty then or did you have to throw your uniform on quick and…

LTC W: Sure. Yeah. I just had to respond with it. As the Provost Marshall, these are all my guys and this was a place that we needed to be and in order to make sure that we provided the exact assistance that was within our limits. We went down and took care of business.

AJ: Well, we appreciate you sir, Colonel. All I know is I made a film. And in it we have the photographs and news articles during Bayfest in Alabama where the Alabama Defense Force was out searching little kid’s bags to go into the city. And that’s the type of stuff that we don’t like under the Constitution. And there’s a lot of calls to restrict the Second Amendment right now because of this shooting. And I just hope that the military will protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

LTC W: Yeah. Sir, I’ll tell you. That was…you just said a great deal of stuff and I…I don’t have a comment on that. I didn’t…I have nothing to say about that. I can just talk about the specific incident that we dealt with last night and the support that we provided to the local law enforcement here in southern Alabama.

AJ: Yeah. But you personally believe in the Second Amendment. Don’t you?

LTC W: Sir. My personal opinions have no bearing here whatsoever. Hey, sir. I appreciate you contacting me and giving me an opportunity to chat with you for a while, but I gotta run.

AJ: OK. Col. Scott Wile, thanks for joining us from Fort Rucker there in Alabama. Take care.

LTC W: OK sir.

//end interview//

http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/090311/reuters/btre52a0fr500btre52a0fr500i36750000.jpg?x=400&y=280&sig=rwJRHvr6FqtodBCySZGRUg--

U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama after a shooting spree March 10, 2009.
REUTERS/Mark Wallheiser

[MsDoodahs]

was it legal? what does that matter? lol they violate their own laws everyday and this is no different. the gooberment is rogue.

This is true...won't matter because they do as they please regardless of that silly concept of "the law."

:(

[acptulsa]

LTC W: Yes sir. And we don’t provide any kind of law enforcement role off of the installation. We didn’t go down there in a law enforcement role. What we did was we went down and just…we took our military police because we’re readily available.

AJ: I understand.

LTC W: …just went down and in a support role, we just took up posts for folks to rotate them so that we could…they could get out, get a place to go sit down, get something to eat, and then get back and take their posts.

AJ: No. I understand

LTC W: We didn’t provide any kind of law enforcement activity at all.

So, they manned the posts of active law enforcement officers long enough for them to eat, but didn't do what the law enforcement officers had been doing? Then why did they bother to go?

[TonySutton]

I worry that this type of thing is planned. That they did it not to get us used to it but rather to force the investigation and then come out and say "yes, it is ok for us to do it" This will be their justification for further encroachment.

[JP2010]

Once upon a time, when I was younger, we had something we found very useful for situations like that one. We called it the 'National Guard'. It was very handy.

And even if there were no Guard around, the Sheriff can deputize people if the need arises.

[Pericles]

And even if there were no Guard around, the Sheriff can deputize people if the need arises.

Or call forth the county militia as envisioned by the founders ....

[donnay]

So, they manned the posts of active law enforcement officers long enough for them to eat, but didn't do what the law enforcement officers had been doing? Then why did they bother to go?

I know, they talk out of both sides of their mouths and then they sound like all they were doing is offering assistance to give the LEOs a break.:rolleyes:


JP2010, you are absolutely spot on! However, you will not hear MSM asking them that question. :mad:

[Reason]

at least it isn't blackwater patrolling our streets....


yet...

[ihsv]

Sheesh... Just call Pizza Hut and have some Super Supremes delivered. I'm sure even Dunken Doughnuts would deliver a few dozen jelly doughnuts if asked.

Taxpayers happy. Cops happy. Constitution happy. Problem solved.

[Bruno]

for some strange reason the interview ended abruptly

[Bruno]

Prices go up and down. If you choose to buy, buy a little whenever you can afford it. You could spend $15 once or twice a month on a silver round. But the end of the year, you'll be amazed when you have 25-50 coins.

[socialize_me]

Prices go up and down. If you choose to buy, buy a little whenever you can afford it. You could spend $15 once or twice a month on a silver round. But the end of the year, you'll be amazed when you have 25-50 coins.

LOL WOW...talk about wrong window open :P

[ihsv]

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj111/Kebochblog/imagescops-20can-27t-20wait.jpg

See? They DO deliver!

[Nate SY]

Goddamn guys, they stood in a road and asked people to take a different direction.

I don't see that as police action. It's not like they were the ones investigating/shooting/arresting/allotheractual things.

I stand for the Constitution. If it says...

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,”

I don't think they enforced any laws, or did any real police duty. Good God, I could stand in a road and block it.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Or call forth the county militia as envisioned by the founders ....

Bingo! And that is the crux of the problem. Calling out the Army is unConstitutional whereas having the civilian militia is not. As I said elsewhere, I don't give two shits if they were cooks standing around with ladels, they're not supposed to be there. If the fucking Sheriff needed warm bodies to back him up, deputize civilians and/or call out the militia. Plain and simple.

[Nate SY]

The way I'm taking what you guys are saying is that due to the fact that they are military they ought not be able to help at all in this kind of situation.

I feel this says that they cannot help a community due to their military service.

I'm approaching this under the belief that these soldiers were merely volunteers coming out to help, if they were directly ordered to do these things there is an issue, if a soldier simply wishes to help what right and reasoning do you have in preventing him from doing so?

[ihsv]

The way I'm taking what you guys are saying is that due to the fact that they are military they ought not be able to help at all in this kind of situation.

I feel this says that they cannot help a community due to their military service.

I'm approaching this under the belief that these soldiers were merely volunteers coming out to help, if they were directly ordered to do these things there is an issue, if a soldier simply wishes to help what right and reasoning do you have in preventing him from doing so?

They may (probaby, actually) have been doing this to help, but it sets a dangerous precident.

They were left there to do the cop's jobs while the police went to Wendys. IF the soldiers were there in place of the police, they were doing police work. IF they were there WITH the police and took no active part in police matters, perhaps your argument may hold some water. Perhaps not.

But the end result was, the cops left the scene and left the soldiers in their place to "guard" a civilian crime scene.

Normally, under such circumstances, police from other districts and jurisdictions would be called in to help relieve the officers on the scene. That's the proper way to deal with not having enough police on hand to handle a civil crime situation.

[Sandra]

The way I'm taking what you guys are saying is that due to the fact that they are military they ought not be able to help at all in this kind of situation.

I feel this says that they cannot help a community due to their military service.

I'm approaching this under the belief that these soldiers were merely volunteers coming out to help, if they were directly ordered to do these things there is an issue, if a soldier simply wishes to help what right and reasoning do you have in preventing him from doing so?


They are NOT allowed to do this in the capacity of a SOLDIER.

[TruckinMike]

Why wasn't the local Militia called up (And I'm not talking about that branch of the standing army known as the National Guard)to help? Thats one of the duties of a militia, especially the Minutemen. I'm sure they would have been there in a minute in a situation like this. To bad there is no one in government actually trusting of its citizens -- Oh well, with all of that "us against them" brainwashing they receive how could we blame them?

TMike

[Nate SY]

They are NOT allowed to do this in the capacity of a SOLDIER.

What I'm saying is, I'm under the assumption that they are a group of people whose occupation happens to be Military, that got together and went down to help. If they were ORDERED to do this, I agree there is an issue. If it was merely people helping, I don't see a problem.

[Sandra]

Why wasn't the local Militia called up (And I'm not talking about that branch of the standing army known as the National Guard)to help? Thats one of the duties of a militia, especially the Minutemen. I'm sure they would have been there in a minute in a situation like this. To bad there is no one in government actually trusting of its citizens -- Oh well, with all of that "us against them" brainwashing they receive how could we blame them?

TMike

It is the LEGAL duty of the National Guard despite your statement in parentheses. Local militias can also mean Blackwater depending where you live.

[Sandra]

What I'm saying is, I'm under the assumption that they are a group of people whose occupation happens to be Military, that got together and went down to help. If they were ORDERED to do this, I agree there is an issue. If it was merely people helping, I don't see a problem.

If they weren't ordered to do it, it might just be associated people being concerned humans. I guess if I were in a truck full of soldiers, a horrible accident occurs, I would definitely run to help. The same as I would do outside a military environment.

[Nate SY]

If they weren't ordered to do it, it might just be associated people being concerned humans. I guess if I were in a truck full of soldiers, a horrible accident occurs, I would definitely run to help. The same as I would do outside a military environment.

Yes, that's what I mean. If the army forced them to do it, it's wrong. If it was a group of individuals taking initiative and helping people I see no issue. The only problem people seem to point out is there occupation.

[donnay]

What I'm saying is, I'm under the assumption that they are a group of people whose occupation happens to be Military, that got together and went down to help. If they were ORDERED to do this, I agree there is an issue. If it was merely people helping, I don't see a problem.

Nate,

Then they should have put on city clothes (or country clothes) and, they needed to be off military duty to offer a helping hand.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878


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.


Look at this picture closely--these guys were wearing their sidearms and vest that say "POLICE"

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200903/r348157_1592089.jpg

This does nothing more than acclimate citizens to accept the military policing on our soil.

This situation should make freedom loving citizens angry! Anything less is people sitting in denial thinking tyranny would NEVER happen on our soil.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

[Nate SY]

I see what you're saying, I hadn't noticed that they were armed.

And I agree that they should have changed, I think the vests are justified as they're for reflective purposes. But I do agree the clothes should have been changed and they shouldn't have been armed.

I just want to avoid a crusade against the military here, I fear that sometimes discussions such as this lead to hate for military. Were things done wrong - yes. Is it inherently evil - no.