Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

mikey_the_redneck · 12-14-2011, 10:00 PM

Well ....if "David Deschesne" knows anything about it...

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/ffj_03260801a.htm

"Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) John Cornelio, Public Affairs Officer for NORTHCOM/NORAD in Colorado Springs agreed with Libby in a telephone interview with the Fort Fairfield Journal. “The CAP is merely an agreement between the U.S. and Canada where Canadian troops will assist the states when asked,” said LTC Cornelio. “They are not intended to be used for law enforcement purposes.”

However, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) seems to contradict Libby’s and Cornelio’s position by placing the sole determination and use of the U.S. military for law enforcement purposes within a state with the President alone. Section 1068 of the NDAA (H.R. 1585) says, “The president, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy...”

The Canadian military’s agreement with NORTHCOM may allow them into the State under the President’s authority in the NDAA to “suppress in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State.” Clearly this portion of the NDAA is intended to authorize the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement within a State, under the President’s discretion, and allows the Canadian military to also be used upon request from NORTHCOM under the CAP.

There is no mention in the NDAA of a State governor’s input in the determination to use U.S. troops within his/her State. Instead, those measures are left solely to the U.S. President alone. The language, “or any other means,” in the law seems to imply the use of foreign troops in addition to, or in lieu of, U.S. troops to enforce the laws of the State and the United States in the event the state’s constituted authorities are either unable, or refuse to provide said enforcement."

12-14-2011, 10:00 PM	#155
mikey_the_redneck Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lethbridge Exp:	Well ....if "David Deschesne" knows anything about it... http://www.mainemediaresources.com/ffj_03260801a.htm "Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) John Cornelio, Public Affairs Officer for NORTHCOM/NORAD in Colorado Springs agreed with Libby in a telephone interview with the Fort Fairfield Journal. “The CAP is merely an agreement between the U.S. and Canada where Canadian troops will assist the states when asked,” said LTC Cornelio. “They are not intended to be used for law enforcement purposes.” However, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) seems to contradict Libby’s and Cornelio’s position by placing the sole determination and use of the U.S. military for law enforcement purposes within a state with the President alone. Section 1068 of the NDAA (H.R. 1585) says, “The president, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy...” The Canadian military’s agreement with NORTHCOM may allow them into the State under the President’s authority in the NDAA to “suppress in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State.” Clearly this portion of the NDAA is intended to authorize the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement within a State, under the President’s discretion, and allows the Canadian military to also be used upon request from NORTHCOM under the CAP. There is no mention in the NDAA of a State governor’s input in the determination to use U.S. troops within his/her State. Instead, those measures are left solely to the U.S. President alone. The language, “or any other means,” in the law seems to imply the use of foreign troops in addition to, or in lieu of, U.S. troops to enforce the laws of the State and the United States in the event the state’s constituted authorities are either unable, or refuse to provide said enforcement."