HR-675: National Police Force

INRM · 29th October 2009, 12:37 PM

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/text
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675

http://defmech.blogivists.com/2009/0...-police-force/

H.R. 675-A national police force?

Quote:

Check out the site here for H.R. 675. The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.” The bill mentions these powers in conjuction with “any offense against the United States.”

As I read H.R. 675, the disturbing powers granted by the bill are the authority to “execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States,” and to “make arrests without a warrant…” for probable cause of past commission or the commission of actual offenses against the United States. Do we really want game wardens serving warrants? What additional federal statutes might be passed that would give these newly minted minions of the law increased control over state and local issues?

Possession of a firearm following a conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor was retroactively made a violation of federal law. (Lautenberg Amendment) Does this bill mean that a game warden would be making arrests during deer season for someone who pled out to a domestic violence beef in 1970 to avoid attorney’s fees, before the conviction meant a loss of Second Amendment rights? (Sorry about that, but the SCOTUS ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment did not have an Ex Post Facto problem.)

This proposed law seems to be an effort by Democrats to implement Obama’s national “civilian” security force. The US Department of Defense has issued Directive 1404.10 that appears to pave the way for a massive ”Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” to support military operations inside and outside the United States.

Are these measures designed to protect the American People from terrorism, or are they designed to protect the Federal Government from American Citizens? Do these activities, taken as a whole represent an attempt to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act, which keeps the Federal Government out of local law enforcement?

Discuss

Eyeron · 29th October 2009, 12:46 PM

Sorry, red flags are being raised.

And at the risk of a Godwin's law of some sort,or even sounding like Alex Jones unfortunately, this is the thing any fascist countries set up, is some sort of police force to encourage other people to spy on their neighbors.

Praktik · 29th October 2009, 12:50 PM

It's pretty amazing to me how often various matters in American politics are really dealth with (to borrow from Hofstadter) "on the precipice".

Its the kind of attitude most prevalent in anti-NWO materials but it is clear that it is not confined to the fringes exclusively.

What also astounds me is just how enduring this attitude is. You'd think it would spike up for a bit, then die down. But it has been pretty well sustained for what I think are several decades now at least.

<insert bill here> = death of the republic, death of American tradition, the road the communism, the road to fascism

Isn't it tiring to see yourself constantly manning the barricades of civilization??

Is this a symptom of entrenched and deepening polarization?

Brainster · 29th October 2009, 12:56 PM

The bloggers at the third link, cite Infowars. 'nuff said.

Normal Dude · 29th October 2009, 01:59 PM

But how are they going to fit in the man-eating robots that read your mind and impinge on your personal freedoms?

Cleon · 29th October 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

But how are they going to fit in the man-eating robots that read your mind and impinge on your personal freedoms?

Nanotechnology. They get put in your bloodstream when you get your mandatory autism-causing vaccine.

drkitten · 29th October 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Discuss

Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it?

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it?

19 disaffected Arabs, with the support of AlQeda, hijacked 4 airplanes and fly three of them into the world trade center and the pentegon....for starters?

DavidJames · 29th October 2009, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it?

I'm not sure how many of these kinds of threads he's started. I've seen many and while each one gets many replies "debunking" his fear/concern,I've yet to see him agree his initial concern was abated.

Maybe I missed one, INRM?

UnrepentantSinner · 29th October 2009, 10:53 PM

Google results HR 675 mostly conspiracy kook sites.

And a check of the Thomas site shows it's not getting much action

Quote:

51. H.R.675 : To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Armed Services; House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Bold mine.

theprestige · 30th October 2009, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Google results HR 675 mostly conspiracy kook sites.

And a check of the Thomas site shows it's not getting much action

Bold mine.

So, just to make sure I understand the progress this bill has made...

Crackpot>Politician>Subcommittee>Committee>House>Senate>Congress>Oval Office(>Veto>Supermajority>)>Law

Is that about right?

GreyICE · 30th October 2009, 07:42 AM

On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I decided to check this one out.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675

Hmm. That actually seems rather accurate. Odd.

Quote:

‘(d) Definition of Law Enforcement Officer of the Department of Defense- In this section, the term ‘law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense’ means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is any of the following:

‘(1) A Federal police officer or detective as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (or any successor to that series).

‘(2) A game law enforcement officer or special agent as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 1812 (or any successor to that series).

‘(3) A criminal investigator as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 1811 (or any successor to that series) and not employed as a special agent of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.’.

Oddly, the BBC has the best summary I found of DOD law enforcement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827

Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future.

That being said, there's already the Feebs, and they're 10x as bad.

So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one. That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance.

theprestige · 30th October 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I decided to check this one out.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675

Hmm. That actually seems rather accurate. Odd.

Oddly, the BBC has the best summary I found of DOD law enforcement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827

Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future.

That being said, there's already the Feebs, and they're 10x as bad.

So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one. That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance.

Wait, so does this bill expand the jurisdiction and authority of DoD cops in new and exciting ways, or does it simply define more clearly and explicitly the authority and jurisdiction they already have?

Cleon · 30th October 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things.

I might be willing to go along with this legislation if an amendment is introduced that would require more Abby time. Rowr.

GreyICE · 30th October 2009, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Wait, so does this bill expand the jurisdiction and authority of DoD cops in new and exciting ways, or does it simply define more clearly and explicitly the authority and jurisdiction they already have?

As far as I can tell, if passed it would grant DOD police forces (MPs, NCIS, and the like) new powers they do not currently have, regarding warrants and other instruments. Of course AFAIK, many of them already have some of those powers (for instance most/all of them can carry arms), so my review would have to be on a case by case basis, and frankly I don't care enough to check every single case to review a bill that's doomed to die in subcommittee.

The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process.

Again, bill is doomed to die in subcommittee, so don't overthink it.

Phrost · 30th October 2009, 12:50 PM

We need another federal police agency like we need more baconators in our diets.

Bills like this are what happens when congressional representatives are so far removed from their constituents that they don't have to worry about getting punched in the face for putting forward this crap.

Ohmer · 30th October 2009, 04:32 PM

So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest.

I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing.

theprestige · 30th October 2009, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

As far as I can tell, if passed it would grant DOD police forces (MPs, NCIS, and the like) new powers they do not currently have, regarding warrants and other instruments. Of course AFAIK, many of them already have some of those powers (for instance most/all of them can carry arms), so my review would have to be on a case by case basis, and frankly I don't care enough to check every single case to review a bill that's doomed to die in subcommittee.

Again, bill is doomed to die in subcommittee, so don't overthink it.

Trust me: I don't overthink any of the issues raised or discussed on JREF.

That said, a warrant is still a warrant, right? It's not like they can serve warrants outside their existing jurisdictions. And it's not like this bill expands their jurisdictions, does it?

Quote:

The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process.

Except, of course, for whatever review process is already in place for creating new organizations that fall under the definition to which this bill applies.

I mean, it's not like the assistant to the regional manager of Human Resources for the Department of Defense can just send out a memo on official letterhead, announcing that she's a deputy DOD law enforcement officer, and be authorized by this bill to carry a firearm and serve warrants, "with no review process".

theprestige · 30th October 2009, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Ohmer

So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest.

I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing.

Actually, that's the best argument in favor of this bill that I've heard so far. I'm disappointed I didn't think of it myself.

hgc · 30th October 2009, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Trust me: I don't overthink any of the issues raised or discussed on JREF.

That said, a warrant is still a warrant, right? It's not like they can serve warrants outside their existing jurisdictions. And it's not like this bill expands their jurisdictions, does it?

Except, of course, for whatever review process is already in place for creating new organizations that fall under the definition to which this bill applies.

I mean, it's not like the assistant to the regional manager of Human Resources for the Department of Defense can just send out a memo on official letterhead, announcing that she's a deputy DOD law enforcement officer, and be authorized by this bill to carry a firearm and serve warrants, "with no review process".

It's just this: Our military exists to defend the nation and fight our wars. It is not supposed to police us. At least not in the framers' conception and not in my own opinion. Let's keep the military out of domestic enforcement. The FBI and numerous other federal law enforcement agencies can make arrests of foreign baddies.

Phrost · 1st November 2009, 09:13 AM

Posse Comitatus.

INRM · 2nd November 2009, 11:27 AM

GreyICE,

Quote:

Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future.

I agree with you in that it is a horrible expansion of powers.

Quote:

So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one.

Agreed

Quote:

That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance.

I hope, but lately who knows.

mhaze · 3rd November 2009, 04:38 PM

Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning?

That was one statement I kind of wondered about.

parky76 · 3rd November 2009, 06:03 PM

'The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”'

I'm sorry, but are you telling me that before this bill, police forces for the DOD, such as MPs, JAG, etc, could not execute warrants or make arrests...or carry guns???

that's pretty sad.

parky76 · 3rd November 2009, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning?

that already exists. its called the State Police and your local police department, or sheriff's dept.

mhaze · 4th November 2009, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

that already exists. its called the State Police and your local police department, or sheriff's dept.

Duhhh....

Which is why I wondered what he was talking about when he said "we need a National Civilian Police Corps".

Ain't talking about boy scouts.

drkitten · 4th November 2009, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

'The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”'

I'm sorry, but are you telling me that before this bill, police forces for the DOD, such as MPs, JAG, etc, could not execute warrants or make arrests...or carry guns???

that's pretty sad.

I'm fairly sure that MPs are not "civilian" employees.

parky76 · 4th November 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

I'm fairly sure that MPs are not "civilian" employees.

you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus.

theprestige · 4th November 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus.

MPs already have that power. Who do you think arrests people on military bases?

Unless you can show me where this bill expands their jurisdiction beyond military bases and personnel, I have no idea what your problem with MPs serving warrants and making arrests is.

Lurker · 4th November 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning?

That was one statement I kind of wondered about.

Rest your troubled mind, Obama never proposed any "Civilian Police Corps" before or during this presidency.

INRM · 4th November 2009, 12:53 PM

GreyICE,

Quote:

The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process.

Excellent point

Phrost,

Quote:

We need another federal police agency like we need more baconators in our diets.

Agreed.

Quote:

Bills like this are what happens when congressional representatives are so far removed from their constituents that they don't have to worry about getting punched in the face for putting forward this crap.

I wouldn't advocate punching any congressional or government official in the face. But you are correct in the fact that bills like this get proposed because our representatives are too far removed from their constituents to ever be held accountable for their actions.

Ohmer,

Quote:

So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest.

I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing.

I'd have to agree with you on that.

HGC,

Quote:

It's just this: Our military exists to defend the nation and fight our wars. It is not supposed to police us. At least not in the framers' conception and not in my own opinion. Let's keep the military out of domestic enforcement.

Which is exactly the problem with this bill.

Quote:

The FBI and numerous other federal law enforcement agencies can make arrests of foreign baddies.

Exactly.

INRM

drkitten · 4th November 2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus.

Er, wrong.

MPs can indeed be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. In fact, that's more or less their job. Indeed, if you sneak onto a Air Force Base and start breaking windows, the person who arrests you will almost certainly be an MP.

parky76 · 4th November 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er, wrong.

MPs can indeed be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. In fact, that's more or less their job. Indeed, if you sneak onto a Air Force Base and start breaking windows, the person who arrests you will almost certainly be an MP.

can they come to your house and arrest you? or do they have to contact the local PD to do that.

drkitten · 4th November 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

can they come to your house and arrest you?

Depends on the circumstances. If you are subject to the UCMJ, they can come to your house and arrest you. If they themselves actually caught you breaking the windows themselves or are in pursuit when you leave the base, they can come and arrest you, although they will probably ask the local police force to do it for them.

In that regard, it's little different than an FBI agent, who has more authority than he's usually willing to use because of the paperwork that it generates.

mhaze · 4th November 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Lurker

Rest your troubled mind, Obama never proposed any "Civilian Police Corps" before or during this presidency.

Whew!!!

That's a relief.

Oh wait...

It was "Civilian National Security Corps".

theprestige · 4th November 2009, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

can they come to your house and arrest you? or do they have to contact the local PD to do that.

Admit it: You have no idea what DoD law enforcement agencies actually do, nor how this bill would or would not change that.

parky76 · 4th November 2009, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Admit it: You have no idea what DoD law enforcement agencies actually do, nor how this bill would or would not change that.

i honestly don't even know what are the civilian DOD law enforcement agencies. is it JAG? i dont know. please inform me.

but as to a new "national police force"...it is all woo. woo with an extra side of woo-fries.

MattusMaximus · 4th November 2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

But how are they going to fit in the man-eating robots that read your mind and impinge on your personal freedoms?

Simple. That's what the H1N1 "vaccine" is for. Didn't you get the memo?

psychictv · 4th November 2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

It was "Civilian National Security Corps".

Oh FFS. He's clearly talking about foreign diplomacy. And he said "civilian national security force". I guess it's understandable that you wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about if you can't even get a four word transcription correct.

UnrepentantSinner · 5th November 2009, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er, wrong.

MPs can indeed be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. In fact, that's more or less their job. Indeed, if you sneak onto a Air Force Base and start breaking windows, the person who arrests you will almost certainly be an MP.

Wrong!

_{SP. Air Force MPs are called Security Police.}

eta - Actually I'm outdated. They're now referred to as Security Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ecurity_Forces

29th October 2009, 12:37 PM	#1
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	HR-675: National Police Force http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675 http://defmech.blogivists.com/2009/0...-police-force/ H.R. 675-A national police force? Quote: Check out the site here for H.R. 675. The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.” The bill mentions these powers in conjuction with “any offense against the United States.” As I read H.R. 675, the disturbing powers granted by the bill are the authority to “execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States,” and to “make arrests without a warrant…” for probable cause of past commission or the commission of actual offenses against the United States. Do we really want game wardens serving warrants? What additional federal statutes might be passed that would give these newly minted minions of the law increased control over state and local issues? Possession of a firearm following a conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor was retroactively made a violation of federal law. (Lautenberg Amendment) Does this bill mean that a game warden would be making arrests during deer season for someone who pled out to a domestic violence beef in 1970 to avoid attorney’s fees, before the conviction meant a loss of Second Amendment rights? (Sorry about that, but the SCOTUS ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment did not have an Ex Post Facto problem.) This proposed law seems to be an effort by Democrats to implement Obama’s national “civilian” security force. The US Department of Defense has issued Directive 1404.10 that appears to pave the way for a massive ”Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” to support military operations inside and outside the United States. Are these measures designed to protect the American People from terrorism, or are they designed to protect the Federal Government from American Citizens? Do these activities, taken as a whole represent an attempt to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act, which keeps the Federal Government out of local law enforcement? Discuss
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

29th October 2009, 12:46 PM	#2
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Sorry, red flags are being raised. And at the risk of a Godwin's law of some sort,or even sounding like Alex Jones unfortunately, this is the thing any fascist countries set up, is some sort of police force to encourage other people to spy on their neighbors.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

29th October 2009, 12:50 PM	#3
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,803	It's pretty amazing to me how often various matters in American politics are really dealth with (to borrow from Hofstadter) "on the precipice". Its the kind of attitude most prevalent in anti-NWO materials but it is clear that it is not confined to the fringes exclusively. What also astounds me is just how enduring this attitude is. You'd think it would spike up for a bit, then die down. But it has been pretty well sustained for what I think are several decades now at least. <insert bill here> = death of the republic, death of American tradition, the road the communism, the road to fascism Isn't it tiring to see yourself constantly manning the barricades of civilization?? Is this a symptom of entrenched and deepening polarization?
Praktik Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,803	__________________ "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile." - John Hinderaker, Powerline Last edited by Praktik; 29th October 2009 at 12:52 PM.

29th October 2009, 12:56 PM	#4
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	The bloggers at the third link, cite Infowars. 'nuff said.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

29th October 2009, 01:59 PM	#5
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 2,544	But how are they going to fit in the man-eating robots that read your mind and impinge on your personal freedoms?
	__________________ Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics. "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity

29th October 2009, 02:01 PM	#6
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,359	Originally Posted by Normal Dude But how are they going to fit in the man-eating robots that read your mind and impinge on your personal freedoms? Nanotechnology. They get put in your bloodstream when you get your mandatory autism-causing vaccine.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

29th October 2009, 02:01 PM	#7
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by INRM Discuss Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it?

29th October 2009, 02:03 PM	#8
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 6,424	Originally Posted by drkitten Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it? 19 disaffected Arabs, with the support of AlQeda, hijacked 4 airplanes and fly three of them into the world trade center and the pentegon....for starters?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

29th October 2009, 02:15 PM	#9
DavidJames Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,745	Originally Posted by drkitten Is there any conspiracy theory that is too outlandish for you to believe it? I'm not sure how many of these kinds of threads he's started. I've seen many and while each one gets many replies "debunking" his fear/concern,I've yet to see him agree his initial concern was abated. Maybe I missed one, INRM?
DavidJames Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,745	__________________ Talk about quality audio/video/home theater on a budget here. Blogging on my hobbies including The Android Adventure here.

29th October 2009, 10:53 PM	#10
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 23,209	Google results HR 675 mostly conspiracy kook sites. And a check of the Thomas site shows it's not getting much action Quote: 51. H.R.675 : To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. Sponsor: Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (None) Committees: House Armed Services; House Judiciary Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Bold mine.
	__________________ "The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of slavery was not" - Carl Sagan in Cosmos discussing the content of the Library of Alexandria. a post by Alan Smithee explained. Blutoski's taxonomy of woo Join my The Not Cool Kids Club

30th October 2009, 06:59 AM	#11
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Google results HR 675 mostly conspiracy kook sites. And a check of the Thomas site shows it's not getting much action Bold mine. So, just to make sure I understand the progress this bill has made... Crackpot>Politician>Subcommittee>Committee>House>Senate>Congress>Oval Office(>Veto>Supermajority>)>Law Is that about right?

30th October 2009, 07:42 AM	#12
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I decided to check this one out. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675 Hmm. That actually seems rather accurate. Odd. Quote: ‘(d) Definition of Law Enforcement Officer of the Department of Defense- In this section, the term ‘law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense’ means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is any of the following: ‘(1) A Federal police officer or detective as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (or any successor to that series). ‘(2) A game law enforcement officer or special agent as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 1812 (or any successor to that series). ‘(3) A criminal investigator as classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 1811 (or any successor to that series) and not employed as a special agent of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).’. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item: ‘1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.’. Oddly, the BBC has the best summary I found of DOD law enforcement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827 Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future. That being said, there's already the Feebs, and they're 10x as bad. So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one. That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

30th October 2009, 11:59 AM	#13
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by GreyICE On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I decided to check this one out. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-675 Hmm. That actually seems rather accurate. Odd. Oddly, the BBC has the best summary I found of DOD law enforcement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827 Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future. That being said, there's already the Feebs, and they're 10x as bad. So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one. That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance. Wait, so does this bill expand the jurisdiction and authority of DoD cops in new and exciting ways, or does it simply define more clearly and explicitly the authority and jurisdiction they already have?

30th October 2009, 12:04 PM	#14
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,359	Originally Posted by GreyICE Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. I might be willing to go along with this legislation if an amendment is introduced that would require more Abby time. Rowr.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

30th October 2009, 12:40 PM	#15
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	Originally Posted by theprestige Wait, so does this bill expand the jurisdiction and authority of DoD cops in new and exciting ways, or does it simply define more clearly and explicitly the authority and jurisdiction they already have? As far as I can tell, if passed it would grant DOD police forces (MPs, NCIS, and the like) new powers they do not currently have, regarding warrants and other instruments. Of course AFAIK, many of them already have some of those powers (for instance most/all of them can carry arms), so my review would have to be on a case by case basis, and frankly I don't care enough to check every single case to review a bill that's doomed to die in subcommittee. The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process. Again, bill is doomed to die in subcommittee, so don't overthink it.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

30th October 2009, 12:50 PM	#16
Phrost The Fighting Skeptic Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Cowtown, Missouri Posts: 1,429	We need another federal police agency like we need more baconators in our diets. Bills like this are what happens when congressional representatives are so far removed from their constituents that they don't have to worry about getting punched in the face for putting forward this crap.
	__________________ "I never intend for my posts to read like I'm aggressive or confrontational, but I am so they do." Executive Director: Bullshido.net Fighting BS in the Martial Arts Amateur No-Holds-Barred/MMA Fighter, Skeptic, Bright. www.Phrost.com

30th October 2009, 04:32 PM	#17
Ohmer Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 614	So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest. I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing.

30th October 2009, 04:53 PM	#18
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by GreyICE As far as I can tell, if passed it would grant DOD police forces (MPs, NCIS, and the like) new powers they do not currently have, regarding warrants and other instruments. Of course AFAIK, many of them already have some of those powers (for instance most/all of them can carry arms), so my review would have to be on a case by case basis, and frankly I don't care enough to check every single case to review a bill that's doomed to die in subcommittee. Again, bill is doomed to die in subcommittee, so don't overthink it. Trust me: I don't overthink any of the issues raised or discussed on JREF. That said, a warrant is still a warrant, right? It's not like they can serve warrants outside their existing jurisdictions. And it's not like this bill expands their jurisdictions, does it? Quote: The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process. Except, of course, for whatever review process is already in place for creating new organizations that fall under the definition to which this bill applies. I mean, it's not like the assistant to the regional manager of Human Resources for the Department of Defense can just send out a memo on official letterhead, announcing that she's a deputy DOD law enforcement officer, and be authorized by this bill to carry a firearm and serve warrants, "with no review process".

30th October 2009, 04:57 PM	#19
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by Ohmer So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest. I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing. Actually, that's the best argument in favor of this bill that I've heard so far. I'm disappointed I didn't think of it myself.

30th October 2009, 10:20 PM	#20
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	Originally Posted by theprestige Trust me: I don't overthink any of the issues raised or discussed on JREF. That said, a warrant is still a warrant, right? It's not like they can serve warrants outside their existing jurisdictions. And it's not like this bill expands their jurisdictions, does it? Except, of course, for whatever review process is already in place for creating new organizations that fall under the definition to which this bill applies. I mean, it's not like the assistant to the regional manager of Human Resources for the Department of Defense can just send out a memo on official letterhead, announcing that she's a deputy DOD law enforcement officer, and be authorized by this bill to carry a firearm and serve warrants, "with no review process". It's just this: Our military exists to defend the nation and fight our wars. It is not supposed to police us. At least not in the framers' conception and not in my own opinion. Let's keep the military out of domestic enforcement. The FBI and numerous other federal law enforcement agencies can make arrests of foreign baddies.
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	__________________ "Swine breath is an atmosphere stabilizer." - PA, The Village

1st November 2009, 09:13 AM	#21
Phrost The Fighting Skeptic Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Cowtown, Missouri Posts: 1,429	Posse Comitatus.
	__________________ "I never intend for my posts to read like I'm aggressive or confrontational, but I am so they do." Executive Director: Bullshido.net Fighting BS in the Martial Arts Amateur No-Holds-Barred/MMA Fighter, Skeptic, Bright. www.Phrost.com

2nd November 2009, 11:27 AM	#22
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	GreyICE, Quote: Conclusion: Someone is watching too much NCIS, and thinks that they should totally be the ones in charge of doing things. It's a horrible expansion of powers, because although at the moment there's no real danger, there's a HUGE problem related to the fact that it grants any federal police the same ability in the future. I agree with you in that it is a horrible expansion of powers. Quote: So, when all's said and done, we should probably try and nix this one. Agreed Quote: That being said, it looks doomed to die in subcommittee. Good riddance. I hope, but lately who knows.
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

3rd November 2009, 04:38 PM	#23
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,230	Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning? That was one statement I kind of wondered about.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

3rd November 2009, 06:03 PM	#24
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,484	'The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”' I'm sorry, but are you telling me that before this bill, police forces for the DOD, such as MPs, JAG, etc, could not execute warrants or make arrests...or carry guns??? that's pretty sad.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

3rd November 2009, 06:04 PM	#25
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,484	Originally Posted by mhaze Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning? that already exists. its called the State Police and your local police department, or sheriff's dept.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

4th November 2009, 06:56 AM	#26
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,230	Originally Posted by parky76 that already exists. its called the State Police and your local police department, or sheriff's dept. Duhhh.... Which is why I wondered what he was talking about when he said "we need a National Civilian Police Corps". Ain't talking about boy scouts.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

4th November 2009, 07:31 AM	#27
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by parky76 'The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”' I'm sorry, but are you telling me that before this bill, police forces for the DOD, such as MPs, JAG, etc, could not execute warrants or make arrests...or carry guns??? that's pretty sad. I'm fairly sure that MPs are not "civilian" employees.

4th November 2009, 07:44 AM	#28
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,484	Originally Posted by drkitten I'm fairly sure that MPs are not "civilian" employees. you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

4th November 2009, 12:41 PM	#29
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by parky76 you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus. MPs already have that power. Who do you think arrests people on military bases? Unless you can show me where this bill expands their jurisdiction beyond military bases and personnel, I have no idea what your problem with MPs serving warrants and making arrests is.

4th November 2009, 12:50 PM	#30
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,041	Originally Posted by mhaze Well, does this bill represent the "Civilian Police Corps" that Obeyme said he wanted while campaigning? That was one statement I kind of wondered about. Rest your troubled mind, Obama never proposed any "Civilian Police Corps" before or during this presidency.
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,041

4th November 2009, 12:53 PM	#31
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	GreyICE, Quote: The problem in my opinion isn't so much that it expands the powers these DOD departments have so much as it blanket grants these powers to any new organization they create, with no review process. Excellent point Phrost, Quote: We need another federal police agency like we need more baconators in our diets. Agreed. Quote: Bills like this are what happens when congressional representatives are so far removed from their constituents that they don't have to worry about getting punched in the face for putting forward this crap. I wouldn't advocate punching any congressional or government official in the face. But you are correct in the fact that bills like this get proposed because our representatives are too far removed from their constituents to ever be held accountable for their actions. Ohmer, Quote: So, we already have the FBI that reports to Department of Justice. Now we could have civilians with basically the same powers that report to the Department of Defense. Perhaps it will make it easier to act on Military intelligence in the US. For example, solders raid a home in Afghanistan and find the address of a terrorist sleeper in the US. The DOD could use it's own people to get a warrant and make the arrest. I think I prefer the FBI doing this sort of thing. I'd have to agree with you on that. HGC, Quote: It's just this: Our military exists to defend the nation and fight our wars. It is not supposed to police us. At least not in the framers' conception and not in my own opinion. Let's keep the military out of domestic enforcement. Which is exactly the problem with this bill. Quote: The FBI and numerous other federal law enforcement agencies can make arrests of foreign baddies. Exactly. INRM
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

4th November 2009, 01:14 PM	#32
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by parky76 you are correct. this would therefore NOT include MPs. MPs cannot be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. its a violation of posse commetatus. Er, wrong. MPs can indeed be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. In fact, that's more or less their job. Indeed, if you sneak onto a Air Force Base and start breaking windows, the person who arrests you will almost certainly be an MP.

4th November 2009, 02:20 PM	#33
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,484	Originally Posted by drkitten Er, wrong. MPs can indeed be allowed to issue warrants and make arrests in the USA. In fact, that's more or less their job. Indeed, if you sneak onto a Air Force Base and start breaking windows, the person who arrests you will almost certainly be an MP. can they come to your house and arrest you? or do they have to contact the local PD to do that.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

4th November 2009, 02:47 PM	#34
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by parky76 can they come to your house and arrest you? Depends on the circumstances. If you are subject to the UCMJ, they can come to your house and arrest you. If they themselves actually caught you breaking the windows themselves or are in pursuit when you leave the base, they can come and arrest you, although they will probably ask the local police force to do it for them. In that regard, it's little different than an FBI agent, who has more authority than he's usually willing to use because of the paperwork that it generates.

4th November 2009, 05:45 PM	#35
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,230	Originally Posted by Lurker Rest your troubled mind, Obama never proposed any "Civilian Police Corps" before or during this presidency. Whew!!! That's a relief. Oh wait... It was "Civilian National Security Corps".
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms