| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Ala. sheriff says he asked Rucker MPs for help |
| 2009-03-19 |
| Update... The Army is investigating the deployment of 22 active duty military police and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker, Ala., to Samson, Ala., following a killing spree by a civilian. Ten people were killed in the March 10 rampage in southeastern Alabama by a man police identified as Michael McClendon, 28, of Kinston, Ala., where the first killing took place around 3:30 p.m. The shooter took his own life after an exchange of gunfire with police. Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward said Wednesday that he requested the MPs in response to an offer of assistance from a lieutenant colonel at Fort Rucker for generators, lights and other equipment. “The lieutenant colonel called our [911] dispatch to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’” Ward told Army Times in a phone interview from his office in Geneva. With seven separate crime scenes spanning a 20-mile area, Ward’s force of 12 deputies and about 10 more police from neighboring towns, were becoming overwhelmed, he said. “I thought, let me call them back. So I asked for MPs to come in and relieve our personnel long enough so they could get something to eat,” Ward said, explaining that most of his men had been on the job since 7 a.m. and were exhausted. The soldiers, he said, were assigned to five highway intersections to help keep traffic flowing and stood guard outside the most horrific crime scene in Samson in which six of the victims, including an 18-month old baby, were killed. What Ward didn’t want, he said, was for anyone to sneak up and get a picture of the bodies and the soldiers watching the crime scene were instructed to inform the police if that was in danger of happening. The deployment of non-medical, active duty troops in response to a local emergency could potentially be a violation of federal law if the soldiers engaged in law enforcement activities. The Posse Comitatus Act mostly bans the military and units of the National Guard under Title 10 authority from acting in a law enforcement role within the United States. There are exceptions when it is expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The investigation into the deployment was ordered by Gen. Martin Dempsey, commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command, because Fort Rucker falls under the command. A statement released Wednesday by TRADOC said the purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed “is the subject of an on-going commander’s inquiry. In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also consider whether law, regulation and policy were followed. Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further,” Dempsey said. Ward said he couldn’t have continued his operations without the help of the MPs. “That lieutenant colonel was not out of place. He called to say ‘we’re here if you need us,” Ward said. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #8 49Pan, Thanks for the input. Fits what I HOPED was the likely case, but I did have my doubts. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-03-19 19:53 |
| #7 What are the possibilities of setting up a mutual aid agreement between small towns/counties near the bases and the base police/fire department, such as are common between contiguous localities? We have such agreements between our county and the surrounding cities, and the county has gone into the city many times to cover when the city was tied up with either a large fire or a rash of fires. The city has backed us up, too, on some large apartment fires near the city line. It's pretty normal for fire and rescue; probably much less normal for police, but I've no doubt there's a mutual aid agreement covering them, too. Obviously the locality would have to formally ask the base for help before the base could send forces to aid the locality. And you never can tell - the base might even need firefighting help if they had a conflagration going. But then, that would take common sense and planning.... :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-03-19 16:09 |
| #6 So what's going to happen the 'next time' when instead of the usual raving civie suspect it's a terrorist attack that overwhelms the local constabulary who've prematurely stumbled on to an attack? Not that such a thing could happen in a community near a military installation [re: Fort Dix]. Hang on the line for a mother-may-I? [re: the USS Ward at Pearl Harbor] |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-19 15:41 |
| #5 Army policy and regulations are pretty clear on this topic, unfortunately. The LTC in his noble effort to help jumped in front of the Post commanderÂ’s decision. DOD must approve this type work to keep it legal and it can all be done over a phone to make it fast. The community has stood up publicly and said without his help they would have failed. This was good and the TRADOC investigation is to cover the post commander and TRADOC commanders asses. The issue is really liability, if the soldier did something that caused harm or loss of property, the Army would be responsible. If a soldier was hurt he might not be covered in a line of duty investigation. I would be willing to bet a round at the club he will get a good formal ass chewing, explained in detail his errors, threatened with relief for cause, and a week later given a letter of commendation for his and his soldiers actions. In command I responded after a tornado hit the town next to post. I sent trucks and troops to clear the road for emergency vehicles to get to injured civilians and fires. We save countless lives. I did not get the proper permissions from the post commander and DOD, so I do understand his situation a little. If the Mayor had not gone public with the credit of saving lives, coached on what to say by one of our JAG officers, I would have been relieved for cause. Tricky situation and commanders, like the LTC, do what they think is right and sometimes knowingly suffer the backlash. Hat tip to him, IÂ’m glad to see him make the call to do the right thing over the safe. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-03-19 14:26 |
| #4 What's more interesting is that the MSM never mentions the history of the Posse Comitatus act in stories like this & how it was used to promote white supremacy after the Civil War. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-03-19 11:30 |
| #3 I'm with you darth , seems they are just hunting something toom bitch about in a horrible situation |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-03-19 11:02 |
| #2 Sounds like a perfectly valid use of MPs. Traffic and crime scene control I think is perfectly fine in this situation. Watch the dhimocrats make much ado about nothing over this as their popularity number plummet. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-03-19 10:57 |
| #1 It wasn't like the troops were used to protect blacks trying to vote which was the real reason for Posse Comitatus (1878) being passed by "Guess that Party" after the Hayes-Tilden election (1877). |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-19 10:50 |