OK this is the same website that incorrectly read invoices to get to the 1.6Bn figure, but any purchase of MRAP for Homeland Security reeks of
1) budget padding.
2) someone thinking they want to be in the army without all that unnecessary IEDs going off.
3) serious KGB mentaility.
Call me crazy, but I always thought that it was the Department of DEFENSE's job to, you know... .defend the US?
I've always hated DHS, and it's people... Honestly, the "port" security that is currently manned by DHS should be either provided by local/state police agencies, National Guard, or Active Military people, it is our job afterall....
Depends on their distribution. If they're sitting around in one place ready to "roll out" for border work or something, yeah that's a little questionable.
But if we're talking about stationing 1 at each airport for emergencies, that's not THAT outrageous.
That said, since most large police departments already have one of these for their swat team, it's a waste for any airport that's already near one.
Indeed, its a waste. It also makes the militia types freak out. Frankly although I'm not a miltiia type, it makes me freak out a little as well. Thats whats the state guard units are for and this reaks of black helicopter/INSERT YOURFAVORITEDICTATORSHIP HERE
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.
Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain as well. They ARE a waste unless there is a significant bomb/mine threat. The 'one at the airport' is silly. They are slower and heavier so harder to get where you need them in an emergency, and there is a VERY low chance that on the way to where they are needed they encounter a burried bomb/mine at the airport. You can get vehicles armored against bullets and even rockets/RPGs a lot cheaper than a vehicle designed to allow a crew to survive being hit by a big burried bomb.
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.
Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.
I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.
I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.
I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.
Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.
Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.
Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.
Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.
So you are not ok with the swat teams having these? Because they have for decades now.
I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.
I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.
Sorry, what instance are they going to get DHS to launch a frontal assault AND NOT NEGOTIATE in the time it takes to wake up the governor? last time the nonmilitary feds did that a certain building was set on fire and what 100 people were killed? Smooth move Janet Reno.
If you need armored vehicles and there's no local Po Po, it should be under that umbrella, not some state security agency. Next thing you know, they'll start wearing snappy cool uniforms.
In order for national guard to get involved, they have to have been SPECIFICALLY authorized by the GOVERNOR. In practice, this means you're only going to be able to use them in a declared state of emergency. They're simply not designed to respond to police events. You do not want to have to wake up the governor so that someone can bring some armor so you can approach a hostage situation in the middle of the night.
Getting it from the police who are allowed to jump right in and drive over is great, but having to wake up the governor and get papers signed is not a reasonable way to respond to things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like the DHS or the TSA either, but you're grasping at straws here.
Thats exactly how I wanty it. If you have to have armor, I want someone important to sign off.
So you are not ok with the swat teams having these? Because they have for decades now.
If the local boys want one and they've got the bank for it, go for it (even though its stupid).
I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.
I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.
Sorry, what instance are they going to get DHS to launch a frontal assault AND NOT NEGOTIATE in the time it takes to wake up the governor? last time the nonmilitary feds did that a certain building was set on fire and what 100 people were killed? Smooth move Janet Reno.
It's funny you should mention wako, since they requested and got the grenades that started the fire from the national guard, as you are suggesting they should do with these.
It's really strange that you're suggesting it's better to declare a state of emergency, suspend the rights of everyone in the airport, spend hours preparing and delivering a vehicle and troops to deal with a situation instead of just giving one to the police agency whose actual jurisdiction and mission cover the airport in the first place.
I really really dislike the DHS and the TSA, but your demands are bonkers.
Kilkrazy wrote: Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?
ROFL. Thanks, I needed the laugh. Thats actually a really common misconception, I mean, technically ywa they are the statebmilitia, but in actual practice the NG is under so much federal oversight and control that its really just a way for the gov. to pad the books and shiftbmilitary expenses onto state budgets.
I've tried coming up with every possible scenario in which MRAPs would be necessary/useful to DHS, I cant find any except for "fighting a domestic insurgency", i.e. a Civil War.
In reality though, my guess is this is much ado about nothing, my guess is that these are actually the DoDs unwanted MRAPs (both the Army and Marines are ditching them due to the drawdown because they have such limited utility and use) transferred to another department in an attempt to.be economical/thrifty.
The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.
They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.
Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.
Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.
And if what chaos says about them possibly being spares is true, then it's a reasonable use of resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really don't like DHS, but you guys are letting your dislike for the agency cloud your thinking over this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?
ROFL. Thanks, I needed the laugh. Thats actually a really common misconception, I mean, technically ywa they are the statebmilitia, but in actual practice the NG is under so much federal oversight and control that its really just a way for the gov. to pad the books and shiftbmilitary expenses onto state budgets.
I've tried coming up with every possible scenario in which MRAPs would be necessary/useful to DHS, I cant find any except for "fighting a domestic insurgency", i.e. a Civil War.
In reality though, my guess is this is much ado about nothing, my guess is that these are actually the DoDs unwanted MRAPs (both the Army and Marines are ditching them due to the drawdown because they have such limited utility and use) transferred to another department in an attempt to.be economical/thrifty.
The article as much as says that is the case -- reconditioned/refurbished vehicles surplus from the Iraq situation.
I really really dislike the DHS and the TSA, but your demands are bonkers.
Again, please cite the instance where the DHS need instant access to an armored vehicle where its a not a local police issue, and don't have the fifteen minutes it takes to call the governor. Especially given their track record when they actually get a hold of a military vehicle. WOOSH!
Please don't insult us with "the TSA needs this" they're not even agents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.
They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.
Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.
Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.
And if what chaos says about them possibly being spares is true, then it's a reasonable use of resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really don't like DHS, but you guys are letting your dislike for the agency cloud your thinking over this.
Not at all. There's no reason for the DHS to have one.
I am slightly surprised the army would let go its MRAPs. The USA is likely to get involved in another situation where such vehicles are needed. OTOH, none of the MRAPs used on Iraq had passed the official testing AFAIK so perhaps it makes sense to sell them secondhand and make a better model for real military use.
Or you could buy the excellent Supacat Jaguar and Coyote vehicles.
If you really think it would take "fifteen minutes" for the governor to declare a state of emergency and commit military troops to an airport, then there's not really much we have to talk about.
It's just bizarre to me that people could worry about "black helicopters" and fascism and stuff, and then in the same breath PREFER that police action be carried out by the national guard.
Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.
Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?
Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?
Rented Tritium wrote: The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.
They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.
Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.
Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.
I strongly disagree. If local/state LE can't handle it, the state NG should be the next step, not a Fed agency. If the Gov can't be assed to get out of bed he should never have been voted into that position. I submit if there is a big enough hostage situation in his state that the LEOs can't handle it, his ass is out of bed monitoring the situation anyway.
I'm sure the dead hostages will appreciate the principle of demanding that governors get out of bed in the middle of the night to send equipment to them, but back in the real world we just want things to work quickly and efficiently.
Nice straw man. If you think waking the gov is the long pole in the tent you are wrong. Mobilizing and transporting the unit to the incident site is gonna take longer. Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs (as whatever agency is in charge collects intel and runs through negotiation protocols) your starw man really becomes in danger of blowing away with the wind.
CptJake wrote: Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs
100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"
Automatically Appended Next Post: And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.
Frazzled wrote: Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!
MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.
Not really accurate. They were invented and fielded because tracked vehicles were tearing up the streets and are expensive to keep fueled and maintained. Wheeled vehicles designed to keep crews alive don't tear up the roads and in theory the logistics of keeping them running is cheaper.
CptJake wrote: Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs
100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"
Automatically Appended Next Post: And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.
I'm not 100% wrong. Show me sources where hostage situations requiring armored vehicles were not multi-day affairs (CONUS). Also, show me where these situations did not make the news.
The reality is SWAT teams use the vehicles to execute warrants they consider dangerous a ton more than for any hostage situation. I suspect you are the one building your straw man from movie type hostage situations.
As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.
As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.
Just for the record, You are alleging that of the following scenarios, the second one is slower?
1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.
2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.
Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?
Frazzled wrote: Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!
MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.
Not really accurate. They were invented and fielded because tracked vehicles were tearing up the streets and are expensive to keep fueled and maintained. Wheeled vehicles designed to keep crews alive don't tear up the roads and in theory the logistics of keeping them running is cheaper.
That is true however the weight is also a problem. The heavier MRAPs have been criticised for being too heavy and damaging roads and culverts, etc.
Yeah that was my first thought but curiosity got the better of me
Rented Tritium wrote: The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.
They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.
Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.
Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.
Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.
Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.
That's because the DHS IS a police force. They are a federal law enforcement agency.
I'm starting to get tired of explaining how the law works over and over itt. I'm out.
Of course, police forces also often act as security agencies.
"security agency" is not a term with legal weight. Security agencies are law enforcement agencies. They refer to the same thing. "security agency", "law enforcement agency" and "police force" are terms which do not have distinct legal definitions.
Rented Tritium wrote: It's just bizarre to me that people could worry about "black helicopters" and fascism and stuff, and then in the same breath PREFER that police action be carried out by the national guard.
Because there is control over the National Guard. The joys at the Department of Justice and the DHS have brought us such epic wins as selling guns to murdering cartels, and wasting dozens of people in compounds. I haven't seen the National Guard do that.
Again, what instance was ever about where the DHS needed one, not wanted one because LA SWAT has one and they want to be tacticool too, but actually needed one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.
Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?
LAPD has one and they want to keep up with the Jones's. Anything else is bureaucratic nonsense, and this is after I'm discounting the black helicopter paramilitary creep crowd.
It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.
You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.
Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?
Rented Tritium wrote: The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.
They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.
Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.
Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.
DHS aint SWAT. DHS is the blue shirt losers making you take off your belt at the airport, like that means something. Remember, pick up that can Citizen!
This is basically why I stopped posting in OT last time. I'm fine with people disagreeing, but if you refuse to even argue facts that exist, why should I waste my time with you?
I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...
But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.
Rented Tritium wrote: It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.
You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.
Sorry, I'm not even in the US a year so the various agencies, jurisdictions etc. are pretty new to me. When I hear DHS I think of Customs and Border and USCIS because that's who I've been dealing with since 2011, and because I don't think either of those have power of arrest and prosecution I was trying to get some clarification. No offense was intended.
Rented Tritium wrote: It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.
You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.
Sorry, I'm not even in the US a year so the various agencies, jurisdictions etc. are pretty new to me. When I hear DHS I think of Customs and Border and USCIS because that's who I've been dealing with since 2011, and because I don't think either of those have power of arrest and prosecution I was trying to get some clarification. No offense was intended.
Alfndrate wrote: I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...
But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.
Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)
IF an MRAP is going into the Hydra that is DHS, it obviously should be going to a place like Border Patrol, until of course, someone has the brilliant idea of Operation 2 Fast 2 Furious, and sells them to the drug cartels
The thing I have against ANY of these agencies getting them, is that other than the motor, and the armor, they are kinda crap... I can see people thinking they'd make great command vehicles, or even swat vehicles, but especially certain models, the ramps are too slow to really be used for that, theres not enough space on the inside for a "command presence", they are excessively loud on the interior while operating, they are top heavy and will roll fairly easily... I mean, I can go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
Also, they aren't needed at airports because generally speaking, each airport has a precinct within it from the local PD (ie. the LAPD has an office/precinct within LAX, specifically to cover and take over any issues that TSA can't handle)
CptJake wrote: Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs
100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"
Automatically Appended Next Post: And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.
Sorry when was the last hostage situation involving the DHS again? When was the last hostage situation involving the DHS requiring a tank? How did we manage to go since the 1920s without armored vehicles for the federales but suddenly need it now?
1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.
If its on a runway its a local matter. Thats why airport have local police in them. Sorry.
What hostage situtaion requires armor again?
2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.
It would be SWAT guys.
Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.
That's because the DHS IS a police force. They are a federal law enforcement agency.
I'm starting to get tired of explaining how the law works over and over itt. I'm out.
Some DHS are police- ATF - the guyys who go after people with illegal guns. You're not saying the DHS is arming the ATF with tanks are you, which you know, is exactly what the black helicopter crowd is arguing.
Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)
They've been under the department of homeland security for 10 years now. Google is your friend.
Rented Tritium wrote: It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.
You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.
As soon as you know are aware of separation of Powers I'll agree with you.
You still haven't sighted when your Die Hard guy is going to need a tank to take down the bad guys, and has actual jurisidcition to do it, and why thats not better than an actual military unit do it.
Rented Tritium wrote: It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.
You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.
As soon as you know are aware of separation of Powers I'll agree with you.
You still haven't sighted when your Die Hard guy is going to need a tank to take down the bad guys, and has actual jurisidcition to do it, and why thats not better than an actual military unit do it.
You want the "actual military" to engage in police actions and you want to lecture me about separation of powers.
As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.
Just for the record, You are alleging that of the following scenarios, the second one is slower?
1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.
2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.
Yeah, the second one sounds WAY longer.
Damn you are good at the strawman scenarios.
1: So incredibly unlikely as to not be worth funding. Bomb disposal does not require armored vehicles and the municipality or county or state EOD that has jurisdiction is going to be closer and quicker and better equipped than a federal agency in almost evry case where time is critical (takes a lot of time to get FBI HRT folks or similar on hand in most cases).
2. 'Airport DHS' is the TSA, and they are not trained nor equipped for this crap.
Again, this is all within the purview of local/state LE. Yes, getting the Gov to call up guard is slower than getting state or local LE on site. I've never argued otherwise. You're the one coming up with scenarios out of a future Die Hard movie. And you have yet to give any real world examples that come close to your fantasy scenarios. Again, where are real world CONUS examples of Fed hostage rescue that required armored vehicles that were not multi-day affairs?
Alfndrate wrote: I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...
But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.
Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)
According to Wikipedia USCG is Department of Homeland Security, which makes sense. You are right that the CG was originally under the DoT until legislation moved them under DHS in 2002 to help "protect American intersts" following Sept. 11th. But the rest of the information is useful, thanks
Kilkrazy wrote: Aren't the National Guard basically the milita of the various states?
Not really, they are more like the army of that particular state.
We have the Federal Army, what is called the Army, Navy, Marines, etc...
Then we have the State Armies. We call them the National Guard. They evolved out of what was once a true militia, but they are now more like a professional army who only works part time.
Yeah, its just there is a difference between an Army and a Militia. The National Guard don't really fit the definition of a militia. That definition is best fit by everyone thats signed up for the Selective Service(IE: the Draft)
Frazzled wrote: Indeed, its a waste. It also makes the militia types freak out. Frankly although I'm not a miltiia type, it makes me freak out a little as well. Thats whats the state guard units are for and this reaks of black helicopter/INSERT YOURFAVORITEDICTATORSHIP HERE
I know for a fact that you've advocated putting Abrams on the US/Mexico border, so why you're freaked out by this is mystifying.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do you write to your congressman and get him to ask a question about why the DHS needs these vehicles?
er...what?
Should probably have been "Why don't you write"
And we have something, but congressional types aren't required to answer you (though the few times I have, the congressman that I wrote happened to respond), but there are those who will either respond personally, or at least their office will.
Does any body have a not crazy link for the story? Because Fraz's link in his OP is reading a lot like crazy weird uncle email spam. Especially when it links to the already debunked zombie myth of the DHS buying all those bullets (the contract is for five years, and represents a supply equal to current usage).
Anyhow, I'm really loving Fraz's little bit of political nonsense where the sequester is somehow the answer to government spending. I mean, I get that you love team Red and everything, but for feth's sake, the actually reality of the situation matters.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Call me crazy, but I always thought that it was the Department of DEFENSE's job to, you know... .defend the US?
I've always hated DHS, and it's people... Honestly, the "port" security that is currently manned by DHS should be either provided by local/state police agencies, National Guard, or Active Military people, it is our job afterall....
Okay, you're crazy. National border control needs a national agency connected to national intelligence gathering operations.
You gonna sit there and claim that guys in ports checking half of 1% or whatever it is of shipping containers is the effective control on importation? It's the surveillance and informant networks (all those 'anonymous tip-offs') that provide effective border control. And that needs a national agency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.
Absolute poppycock. The ease and efficiency with which resources can be rolled out depends entirely on how those resources are stored, and the protocols needed to deploy them. That is to say, if a resource needs the approval of only the local controller, and the resources are directly on hand, then it will be quicker to deploy than resources needing approval from higher up the chain of command, and the transport of resources from state or national level storage, no matter whether it is nominally a state of federal asset.
Trying to invent some kind of 'state governemt is more efficient' for a specific case like this is just lazy thinking.
I'm sure that there can be some justification for the need of an MRAP type vehicle, at some of our airports, or other roles that DHS fulfills. More then 2,000 though, at a cost of about 1 billion dollars?
Why not just repurpose some of the MRAPS that came back from Iraq, and soon to be Afghanistan, for this? The DoD is no stranger to "selling" surplus materials.
djones520 wrote: I'm sure that there can be some justification for the need of an MRAP type vehicle, at some of our airports, or other roles that DHS fulfills. More then 2,000 though, at a cost of about 1 billion dollars?
Yeah, I can't see a need for that many. DHS includes Customs and Border Patrol, so I could see some being stationed at the various entry points along the US/Mexico border. Those cartels don't play nice down there: they already have their own armored vehicles.
My guess is that very few states have them (like Texas) as I also haven't heard of them.
Alaska*, Alabama, California*, Conneticut, Washington DC*, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois*, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusets, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey*, New Mexico, New York*, Ohio*, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas*, Vermont, Virginia*, and Washington State all have state guard/defense forces on duty.
sebster wrote: Seriously, does anyone have a non-crazy link for this story? Is it going to be like that OMG DHS buying one billion bullets thing again?
This particular MRAP is attached to a Special Response Team with "Operators" who apparently use it to serve warrants.... hmmm. It's also worth noting that the vehicle displays "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) markings along with it's DHS and SRT identifiers. Honestly the southern border might eventually need a small supply of vehicles like these, as border violence continues to escalate.
djones520 wrote: I'm sure that there can be some justification for the need of an MRAP type vehicle, at some of our airports, or other roles that DHS fulfills. More then 2,000 though, at a cost of about 1 billion dollars?
Why not just repurpose some of the MRAPS that came back from Iraq, and soon to be Afghanistan, for this? The DoD is no stranger to "selling" surplus materials.
From what I can tell in January 2011 Navistar Defense was awarded a contract by U.S. Marine Corps System Command to upgrade 2,717 MRAPs. The video in Frazzled's link was posted in May 2012, somehow this is news worthy of March 2013.
This particular MRAP is attached to a Special Response Team with "Operators" who apparently use it to serve warrants.... hmmm. It's also worth noting that the vehicle displays "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) markings along with it's DHS and SRT identifiers. Honestly the southern border might eventually need a small supply of vehicles like these, as border violence continues to escalate.
Is there any occupation left that even remotely involves the use of firearms that hasn't appropriated the "operator" terminology?
This particular MRAP is attached to a Special Response Team with "Operators" who apparently use it to serve warrants.... hmmm. It's also worth noting that the vehicle displays "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) markings along with it's DHS and SRT identifiers. Honestly the southern border might eventually need a small supply of vehicles like these, as border violence continues to escalate.
Is there any occupation left that even remotely involves the use of firearms that hasn't appropriated the "operator" terminology?
I'm a gunsmith, the most tacticool we get is "Armorers" and those guys usually catch gak because they tend to be significantly less trained then an actual gunsmith. If I do meet an "operator gunsmith" I'll be sure to get a picture so everyone can join me in laughing.
From what I can tell in January 2011 Navistar Defense was awarded a contract by U.S. Marine Corps System Command to upgrade 2,717 MRAPs. The video in Frazzled's link was posted in May 2012, somehow this is news worthy of March 2013.
Ah right, there we go. Nothing to see here people. Just the same grape vine nonsense as the omg DHS buys a billion bullets, government takeover is coming!
CptJake wrote: As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.
Absolute poppycock. The ease and efficiency with which resources can be rolled out depends entirely on how those resources are stored, and the protocols needed to deploy them. That is to say, if a resource needs the approval of only the local controller, and the resources are directly on hand, then it will be quicker to deploy than resources needing approval from higher up the chain of command, and the transport of resources from state or national level storage, no matter whether it is nominally a state of federal asset.
Trying to invent some kind of 'state governemt is more efficient' for a specific case like this is just lazy thinking.
Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
This particular MRAP is attached to a Special Response Team with "Operators" who apparently use it to serve warrants.... hmmm. It's also worth noting that the vehicle displays "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) markings along with it's DHS and SRT identifiers. Honestly the southern border might eventually need a small supply of vehicles like these, as border violence continues to escalate.
Is there any occupation left that even remotely involves the use of firearms that hasn't appropriated the "operator" terminology?
My wiener dogs are squirrel aquisition and termination operators.
Frazzled wrote: Indeed, its a waste. It also makes the militia types freak out. Frankly although I'm not a miltiia type, it makes me freak out a little as well. Thats whats the state guard units are for and this reaks of black helicopter/INSERT YOURFAVORITEDICTATORSHIP HERE
I know for a fact that you've advocated putting Abrams on the US/Mexico border, so why you're freaked out by this is mystifying.
Because thats the Army. Thats their job. Not the airport security rent a cops.
ICE shouldn't have them either. If we need armored vehicles on the border, we need they Army there, who's job is...protect the borders of the United States.
d-usa wrote: So when people say that DHS is not a law enforcement agency, are they saying that:
-Customs and Border Protection -Imigration and Customs Enforcement -United States Secret Service -US Coast Guard
These are not law enfocement agencies?
(I left out the TSA on purpose )
I believe in my last post I said people were getting their panties twisted over the United States Secret Service*, the Coast Guard*, and the TSA. Immigration and Border Patrol could totally have need for these types of vehicles... Except maybe for customs... Granted when I went through customs after our cruise it was just a bunch of people you looked like slightly friendlier TSA agents making sure that I wasn't smuggling cocaine in my rectum or exoctic fruits. They weren't really clear on that one :-\.
* - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders, and I'm not sure what these vehicles need to be doing on boats.
These vehicles are a VERY poor choice for border patrol. They are expensive to maintain, slow, and their off road manueverability is crap.
They are a very poor choice for the secret service for a variety of reasons (to include the main one, the threat these vehicles are designed to counter, burried bombs, are not present in the areas the secret service should be taking VIPs into).
Coast Guard does not have a mission that requires these, nor should they.
TSA also does not have a mission that requires patrolling areas where burried bombs and mines are likely.
Lets be clear, an MRAP is designed to counter burried explosive charges that attack the underside of a vehicle. They are not very manueverable, they are very expensive to maintain, they are slow and heavy. They were designed for a very specific purpose and honestly there is not much use for them stateside.
This is an attempt to make some use of vehicles coming out of the war zones. Unfortunately those vehicles get beat to heck and require a lot of money to fix them up and refurbish them for stateside use. They are going to be nothing but a burden on the tax payers. I suspect many will find their way to local and state LE agencies and be a burden on their tax sources and really there is not enough of a requirement to justify the costs.
* - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders.
The protection gig is about half their job. The other half is basically policing our financial system. So there is a lot of police work with counterfitting and fraud going on.
Had a patient once who made quite a few threads against Obama to our police (even the VA has law enforcement functions) and they had to forward them to the Secret Service. I was actually quite surprised when we had agents in our hospital within 30 minutes. I learned that night that we have our own secret service office in Oklahoma City due to having a branch of the Kansas City Federal Reserve in OKC.
d-usa wrote: So when people say that DHS is not a law enforcement agency, are they saying that:
-Customs and Border Protection -Imigration and Customs Enforcement -United States Secret Service -US Coast Guard
These are not law enfocement agencies?
(I left out the TSA on purpose )
I believe in my last post I said people were getting their panties twisted over the United States Secret Service*, the Coast Guard*, and the TSA. Immigration and Border Patrol could totally have need for these types of vehicles... Except maybe for customs... Granted when I went through customs after our cruise it was just a bunch of people you looked like slightly friendlier TSA agents making sure that I wasn't smuggling cocaine in my rectum or exoctic fruits. They weren't really clear on that one :-\.
* - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders, and I'm not sure what these vehicles need to be doing on boats.
NONE of thse groups should have armored vehicles. If you need major combat units you call the Army. (ok I'll give onthe SS unit specifically protecting El Presidente) 1. Thats pure bureaucratic duplication. Stick to your damn job and quit trying to expand your little government empire. 2. The last time your nattering nabobs got a hold of a tank dozens of people died. You have no business with tanks. It screams NKVD and the paramilitarization of our police. 3. As the immortal bard once said: "soldiers deserve soldiers sir." Let the guys who know what they are doing handle tank combat thank you very much.
Whats next, the TSA getting hold of some surplus B-52s? Just in case...
* - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders.
The protection gig is about half their job. The other half is basically policing our financial system. So there is a lot of police work with counterfitting and fraud going on.
Had a patient once who made quite a few threads against Obama to our police (even the VA has law enforcement functions) and they had to forward them to the Secret Service. I was actually quite surprised when we had agents in our hospital within 30 minutes. I learned that night that we have our own secret service office in Oklahoma City due to having a branch of the Kansas City Federal Reserve in OKC.
Ayah their big function outside of protection is counterfeiting and similar crimes.
I don't really get why "armor" immediately equals "military" exactly.
Our cops wear BPVs. That's militarization of the police. Our cops have guns. That's militarization of the police if we believe you.
The equipment you are using does not make you military or not military. Your command structure makes you military or not military.
If I suggested that we put bulletproof armor on a police car, you would not bat an eye, but because the vehicle is purpose built with armor, that's magically overreach?
E: Oh wait, I just remembered why. It's because you don't like obama.
From what I can tell in January 2011 Navistar Defense was awarded a contract by U.S. Marine Corps System Command to upgrade 2,717 MRAPs. The video in Frazzled's link was posted in May 2012, somehow this is news worthy of March 2013.
Ah right, there we go. Nothing to see here people. Just the same grape vine nonsense as the omg DHS buys a billion bullets, government takeover is coming!
Um... a billion bullet is a gak-ton dude... I'm not arguing that they don't need it...it's just wasteful and the priorites seems whacked.
As to the MRAPS... *shrugs* seems like someone had money that they need to spend otherwise, they'd lose it. Again... seems wasteful/priorites seems whacked.
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't really get why "armor" immediately equals "military" exactly.
Our cops wear BPVs. That's militarization of the police. Our cops have guns. That's militarization of the police if we believe you.
The equipment you are using does not make you military or not military. Your command structure makes you military or not military.
If I suggested that we put bulletproof armor on a police car, you would not bat an eye, but because the vehicle is purpose built with armor, that's magically overreach?
E: Oh wait, I just remembered why. It's because you don't like obama.
But it's not just him... I'm not a huge Obama guy either, granted I'm far more for him than I am for the alternative we could have gotten, it just seems odd (to me) that these different agencies have needs for these vehicles, when there doesn't seem to be much need for them beyond 1 or 2 of the child agencies, and as it has been pointed out for me, those vehicles are crap for such things.
Because thats the Army. Thats their job. Not the airport security rent a cops.
ICE shouldn't have them either. If we need armored vehicles on the border, we need they Army there, who's job is...protect the borders of the United States.
IMO, we have a very good case for putting the army/marines out on the southern border. If you view the mass influx of illegal immigrants coming to the US, and the number of those who were hardened criminals BEFORE they broke the law and entered the US illegally, as an invasion rather than simply the inability to use civilians to properly secure our borders.... Remember how back in the day, like in history class, if a Frenchman illegally entered Spain, or England or Germany, he was treated as a spy, and as a spy his act was potentially treated as an act of war..
This all tin foil hat stuff of course, but if we were REALLY serious about stopping immigrants from entering illegally, and also stopping or stemming the drug cartels, we'd use actual military force, not some dude in a pair of aviators and brown suit labeled Border Patrol.
Thing still remains, those of us who have used that hunk of steel called an MRAP can attest to it not being the greatest thing out there for hardly any tasks, especially ones that are obviously within the various LE agencies area of control.
Well the DHS has over 200,000 staff. If half of them are armed and use 10 rounds a week each on average for training, they will use up 50,000,000 a year.
The 1,000,000,000 is a contract running for 10 years, so perhaps half of the quantity is for training and the other half is for operational readiness.
It doesn't seem excessive, really, worked out like that. Have I done my sums right?
1BN/50mm=20 years worth. However the actual contract was misread. The real amount is about 400mm rounds over five years, which is realistic and in line with the meat of your argument.
CptJake wrote: Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a paper sign off. It's just not even a factor compared to the deployment of hardware like an MRAP and the personel that would be needed in any situation justifying the deployment of an MRAP.
sebster wrote: Seriously, does anyone have a non-crazy link for this story? Is it going to be like that OMG DHS buying one billion bullets thing again?
Yeah, which is for the purchase of one MRAP. Which the video says is intended to cover multiple states (New Mexico and somewhere else).
And then the text says there's "As one would expect, tales of DHS buying 2,700 MRAPs from the Army have inflamed the government conspiracy corners of the blogosphere." ie the idea of 2,700 MRAPs is conspiracy stuff, with no actual content behind it.
I mean, we have evidence of one MRAP in use across border states for immigration, and commentary that implies that such vehicles are few and far between. And then we have the crazy blogosphere talking about some ridiculous number of MRAPs. And Fraz posting the crazy latter claim, in the belief that insane nonsense stories must be true if they talk about government spending lots of money.
So, like I said, nothing to see here, it's just crazy uncle email spam, move on everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Um... a billion bullet is a gak-ton dude... I'm not arguing that they don't need it...it's just wasteful and the priorites seems whacked.
As Killkrazy and Fraz explained, the contract was both misread and misrepresented. The number of bullets contracted over the period of time given is exactly what you'd expect from an organisation with a lot of agents who need to maintain firearms proficiency.
As to the MRAPS... *shrugs* seems like someone had money that they need to spend otherwise, they'd lose it. Again... seems wasteful/priorites seems whacked.
No, there isn't 2700 of the things being bought. That's just a crazy ass claim floating across the paranoid parts of the blogosphere.
And 'use it or lose it' budgeting, or lapsing budgets is way overstated in government. In most places you'll see carry forward set ups that mitigate that problem.
In fact, in my experience I've seen lapsing budgets used way more in the private sector.
CptJake wrote: Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a paper sign off. It's just not even a factor compared to the deployment of hardware like an MRAP and the personel that would be needed in any situation justifying the deployment of an MRAP.
.
Your world is a LOT different from reality. Jusisdiction handovers are not usually fast because local/state don't jsut sign it away for gaks and giggles. Again, in almost every case, state and local will have the needed assets way faster than federal LE. At least in the real world.
CptJake wrote: Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a paper sign off. It's just not even a factor compared to the deployment of hardware like an MRAP and the personel that would be needed in any situation justifying the deployment of an MRAP.
.
Your world is a LOT different from reality. Jusisdiction handovers are not usually fast because local/state don't jsut sign it away for gaks and giggles. Again, in almost every case, state and local will have the needed assets way faster than federal LE. At least in the real world.
Really? Because I work in the real world and these things are generally handled IN ADVANCE with a memorandum of understanding.
CptJake wrote: Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a paper sign off. It's just not even a factor compared to the deployment of hardware like an MRAP and the personel that would be needed in any situation justifying the deployment of an MRAP.
.
Your world is a LOT different from reality. Jusisdiction handovers are not usually fast because local/state don't jsut sign it away for gaks and giggles. Again, in almost every case, state and local will have the needed assets way faster than federal LE. At least in the real world.
Really? Because I work in the real world and these things are generally handled IN ADVANCE with a memorandum of understanding.
Heck,
I was a volunteer with a hick rural volunteer fire department, and even we managed to come up with mutual aid agreements to handle going into other departments jurisdictions.
I was a volunteer with a hick rural volunteer fire department, and even we managed to come up with mutual aid agreements to handle going into other departments jurisdictions.
I think that planning for potential issues ahead of time for "routine" things is fairly normal, however most folks have been talking more about the ZOMG catastrophic everyone panic emergency!!!! type situations... Or really, anything we don't really plan for.
Frazzled wrote: Whats next, the TSA getting hold of some surplus B-52s? Just in case...
Dear God no! I had enough trouble getting them to track down paperwork
Alfndrate wrote: * - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders, and I'm not sure what these vehicles need to be doing on boats.
Don't they have jurisdiction for protecting foreign Embassies on US soil (as in the grounds outside the buildings/gates etc.)?
Frazzled wrote: Whats next, the TSA getting hold of some surplus B-52s? Just in case...
Dear God no! I had enough trouble getting them to track down paperwork
Alfndrate wrote: * - Admittedly, I'm unsure of what the secret service does beyond protecting the President, other government leaders, and visiting world leaders, and I'm not sure what these vehicles need to be doing on boats.
Don't they have jurisdiction for protecting foreign Embassies on US soil (as in the grounds outside the buildings/gates etc.)?
They do indeed protect embassies, but again, not sure why they need them, nor why they need to be shipped from overseas to stateside and then back overseas to other countries... Don't they know that the USPS raised their shipping rates, and won't be doing Saturday deliveries anymore?!
Alfndrate wrote: They do indeed protect embassies, but again, not sure why they need them, nor why they need to be shipped from overseas to stateside and then back overseas to other countries... Don't they know that the USPS raised their shipping rates, and won't be doing Saturday deliveries anymore?!
And with the sequester there might not be the money to punch air holes in their crates
They do indeed protect embassies, but again, not sure why they need them, nor why they need to be shipped from overseas to stateside and then back overseas to other countries... Don't they know that the USPS raised their shipping rates, and won't be doing Saturday deliveries anymore?!
No, they protect FOREIGN embassies on US soil, not the other way round (well, it may be... but we also use Marines for that)
They do indeed protect embassies, but again, not sure why they need them, nor why they need to be shipped from overseas to stateside and then back overseas to other countries... Don't they know that the USPS raised their shipping rates, and won't be doing Saturday deliveries anymore?!
No, they protect FOREIGN embassies on US soil, not the other way round (well, it may be... but we also use Marines for that)
My bad, I misread that
Though I thought I had it covered the dignitaries when I said world leaders :-\
I was a volunteer with a hick rural volunteer fire department, and even we managed to come up with mutual aid agreements to handle going into other departments jurisdictions.
I think that planning for potential issues ahead of time for "routine" things is fairly normal, however most folks have been talking more about the ZOMG catastrophic everyone panic emergency!!!! type situations... Or really, anything we don't really plan for.
There's no such thing as "routine" in police work. It's a nonsense phrase. Calls are calls. A mutual aid agreement or an MoU are functional either way. You might even have a line in there like "in the event of an incident involving the following... the highest ranking sworn officer on duty may request... blah blah" to account for anything really insane.
CptJake wrote: Absolutely NOT poppycock. For LE missions involving SWAT/SRT type forces the Feds rarely start with jurisdiction, and therefore to get them and their assets generally takes more time than the state/local LE that has jurisdiction and assets within that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a paper sign off. It's just not even a factor compared to the deployment of hardware like an MRAP and the personel that would be needed in any situation justifying the deployment of an MRAP.
.
Your world is a LOT different from reality. Jusisdiction handovers are not usually fast because local/state don't jsut sign it away for gaks and giggles. Again, in almost every case, state and local will have the needed assets way faster than federal LE. At least in the real world.
Really? Because I work in the real world and these things are generally handled IN ADVANCE with a memorandum of understanding.
Really. Because again, Fed use of these types of assets is RARE. States and local county/municipalities have SWAT/SRT type units and gear and use them regularly (and even they will argue over who gets to do what in some instances where jurisdiction/needed capability are in question, the recent dust up in CA being a good example). So for them to call in the Feds, or the Feds to tell them 'Stop, we are gonna fight you for jurisdiction so we can use our toys' is not a common event.
CptJake wrote: Your world is a LOT different from reality. Jusisdiction handovers are not usually fast because local/state don't jsut sign it away for gaks and giggles. Again, in almost every case, state and local will have the needed assets way faster than federal LE. At least in the real world.
In the real world... where I work in state government department, in a federalised system with clear jurisdictional seperation between local, state and federal authorities... yeah, in this real world these things exist as paper sign offs, frequently sorted out with, as Rented Tritium said, memorandums of understanding already in place. Or when a new and unforeseen situation does arrive, with an agreement in principle taken at the time. Not saying it's not an issue, but compared to the time required to move heavy machinery across straight, it's frankly laughable that you'd think jurisdictional disputes are the bigger issue.
I think it is interesting how this shows the average guy, really without thinking about it, instinctively trusts the military more than police. I'm not sure that's smart. I'm active duty, but the military isn't necessarily a loyal organization-- they are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (well the officers are so sworn, anyway, not enlisted men) yet they have no problem vaporizing US citizens not engaged in combat, who haven't even been charged with a crime much less given due process. I get irritated by police also, but this instinctive trust of the military, especially senior officers, is naieve.
The military live on fenced-in bases and usually only appear in public on splendid ceremonial occasions, marching up and down in smart uniforms, with a band playing rousing patriotic music.
The police drive around town hassling you for speeding fines and blocking the seats in donut shops.
Silverthorne wrote: I think it is interesting how this shows the average guy, really without thinking about it, instinctively trusts the military more than police. I'm not sure that's smart. I'm active duty, but the military isn't necessarily a loyal organization-- they are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (well the officers are so sworn, anyway, not enlisted men) yet they have no problem vaporizing US citizens not engaged in combat, who haven't even been charged with a crime much less given due process. I get irritated by police also, but this instinctive trust of the military, especially senior officers, is naieve.
I dunno what oath you took mate but I took this one per federal statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502:
Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I've also participated in plenty of barracks jawing sessions across these United States, and I'd say it's the rare man who'd support the government over the citizenry.
That said I'd agree with Killkrazy's assessment that it's who you see as much as anything else.
Silverthorne wrote: I think it is interesting how this shows the average guy, really without thinking about it, instinctively trusts the military more than police. I'm not sure that's smart. I'm active duty, but the military isn't necessarily a loyal organization-- they are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (well the officers are so sworn, anyway, not enlisted men) yet they have no problem vaporizing US citizens not engaged in combat, who haven't even been charged with a crime much less given due process. I get irritated by police also, but this instinctive trust of the military, especially senior officers, is naieve.
I'm calling BS on your claim of enlistment, if your that ignorant of the oath you took, twice before heading to boot.
Well, that only leaves on option, if it's at all factual. If so, then I would strongly advise learning a little bit more about the enlisted corp before trying to speak from a position of authority on military knowledge. Your assertation that the military as a whole would have no problem turning our weapons on the citizens we defend with our lives for no reason other then orders reflects no actual knowledge of who those of us in uniform actually are.
I think you might be focusing on the wrong part there... My point was about officers, who take the oath of office, seemingly completely disregarding it. The fact that enlisted men don't is pretty irrelevant since there are no enlisted drone pilots in the USAF that I know of, although there are a few in the Navy (which doesn't operate predators). I appreciate the laserlike focus that you are able to direct at anything other than the point of what I am saying, but it is pedantic and useless in this instance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Well, that only leaves on option, if it's at all factual. If so, then I would strongly advise learning a little bit more about the enlisted corp before trying to speak from a position of authority on military knowledge. Your assertation that the military as a whole would have no problem turning our weapons on the citizens we defend with our lives for no reason other then orders reflects no actual knowledge of who those of us in uniform actually are.
Did I assert that? Just like I asserted I took the oath of enlistment? Work on the reading skills sometime. Also, I can seemingly recall this one time, many years ago where the military as a whole did actually turn their weapons on the citizens that had previously defended. You may have read about it too-- it was the bloodiest war in American history.
Seriously, read what I wrote, I was very specifically referencing a drone strike on US citizens that have not been tried in a court of law and are not actively engaged in combat. Are you denying this happened? Or just insulting me for some other random reason? Unbelievable.
Per section 3331, Title 5, United States Code the officer's oath of office.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
for national guard officers per National Guard Bureau Form 337:
I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Not to mention you specifically cited a difference between officers and enlisted men on the heart of the oath both officers and enlisted men take, that we defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We've cited chapter and verse. You've blown smoke. I know plenty of officers too, I'm a flight crew member, jawing with officers is one of the privileges we get as flyers. I don't know anything about 360 joc... err drone "pilots" but it's a rare man or woman in this man's Marine Corps who'd fire on US citizens just on order. I'm not sure where you serve, if you serve, but it's a pretty screwed up place.
This is getting ridiculous. Yes, I was wrong about the oath of enlistment, and I don't see how that is relevant. I'm so sorry I led anyone astray concerning that issue.
The Oath of Officer you are quoting... THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. They violated their oath of office. Are you not aware that this going on? That predator strikes are targeting US Citizens, in violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?
Seriously, have you not heard about this? Who did you think was flying these Predators that fried those US citizens? Santa? No, Air Force officers. Who I assume took the oath of office.
My Point-- the constitution forbids execution of a US citizen without due process. Do you agree?
Everyone in the military swears to defend the constitution. Do you agree?
Someone in the military is executing US Citizens via hellfire off a Predator drone, in violation of their oath. Do you agree?
What is the hang up here? And what is with the personal attacks? Seriously.
Edit-- The CIA mission is executed by USAF assets and personell. See also SR-71, U2, A-12, basically every CIA aviation program besides Plan Columbia and Air America... This isn't just a slam on the Air Force either, I'm sure if the topography allowed use of Tomahawks the Navy would be all over it too.
Why the hostility, only because you just came in here claiming to speak from a position of knowledeable authority, and then went on to state I was a mindless killing machine.
Then I would have claimed I was one, and pretty much every male member of my family was one. Good thing I didn't actually say anything like that. I said the military ran shady stuff just like the entire rest of the government. That doesn't make any individual in the military necessarily a bad dude. In this entire time, I have called out specifically, and exactly one group of people- senior (flag level) officers. Are you telling me that you have always felt that they are trustworthy and have your best interest and the defense of the nation at heart? Why would I insult other military people? That doesn't even make sense.
djones520 wrote: I'm calling BS on your claim of enlistment, if your that ignorant of the oath you took, twice before heading to boot.
I find it fascinating that the first instance I've seen of someone questioning someone else's claim of military service comes in a thread where they're indirectly critical of the military.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Note the underlined.
This oath doesn't prevent you from firing upon US citizens if they have been determined to be an enemy of the Constitution. And heck, that definition could be taken quite loosely.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Note the underlined.
This oath doesn't prevent you from firing upon US citizens if they have been determined to be an enemy of the Constitution. And heck, that definition could be taken quite loosely.
I think that your reply misses the basic point that the military is supposed to be only for times of war, thus the oath is designed to war-time enemies. Where things have gotten muddled is how the government since Nixon(could be argued since Kennedy) has steadily passed laws that have sought to circumvent the established procedure for either declaring war or use of military force.
1)It was Nixon that declared "War on Crime", which laid the ground work for equipping Leo.s with military training, weapons and armour.
2)Reagan declared "War on Drugs" which led to all branches of the military(Coast Guard, Navy. Marines, Army and Air Force) to be used in drug interdiction throughout the Gulf of Mexico and both Central & South America.
3)Both Bush #1. and Clinton expanded these roles.
4)Then along comes Bush #2 with his "War on Terror" and "The Patriot Act"
5)Finally, we have Obama with the "NDAA"
The big problem here are 1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.
What I'm getting at is that we have an oath that was designed for soldiers operating in a traditional war between nations, yet the US has enacted laws and policies that have expanded the military's role to the point of them being regularly used in what are viewed as non-war/non-traditional roles.
Maybe its time to do one of the following:
a) re-write the oath
b)clearly redefine the contitutional definition of war and setting strict guidelines for how such is declared
or
c)redefine what exactly is the military's role particularly those concerning interaction with civilians
Personally, I'm in favor of b) Clearly redefining the contitutional definition of war and setting strict guidelines for how such is declared.
The reason I feel such is that the various legal and ethical grey areas(conflicts) create to much ambiguity and room for exploitation. This, in turn, leaves many feeling that the government operates outside of the constitution which in turn leads to distrust.
Though, "c) clearly redefining the military's role" should also be done. This could help help cut down on spending and jurisdictional conflicts.
1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.
Are you under the impression that such "wars" are anything other than rhetorical?
djones520 wrote: I'm calling BS on your claim of enlistment, if your that ignorant of the oath you took, twice before heading to boot.
I find it fascinating that the first instance I've seen of someone questioning someone else's claim of military service comes in a thread where they're indirectly critical of the military.
We'd have never stood for that sort of in-service infighting back when I was a soldier in the Marine Core.
1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.
Are you under the impression that such "wars" are anything other than rhetorical?
Rhetoric? Yes
Effective Rhetoric? Yes
More than Rhetoric? Also, yes.
"Such" were more than "effective rhetoric", they were White House Policy. They provided both the rational and popular support for policies and legislation that expanded the role of the military to being much more than previously allowed.
). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the 
I imagine that the flag can cause some confusion.
