Herk Driver

Posse Comitatus Pretty good article about current application of PCA. This is what the PCA actually says: Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus. Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Note that 18 USC sect 1385 does not apply (by law) to the Navy, Marines or the USCG. It applies only through DOD policy. Another good PCA article However, several exceptions have been made to PCA throughout the years. This includes Title 10 USC Chap 18 which authorizes military support for civilian law enforcement agencies for counterdrug operations and in emergencies involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. It also states that military personnel shall not participate in searches, seizures, arrests, or similar activities unless such participation is otherwise authorized by law. (Military police personnel, for example, may enforce the law within their jurisdictions.) What exactly is an MP's jurisdiction within the AOR? I would argue that they are well within their boundaries to read someone their rights, as they do daily. But the real question is should they. Bottom Line: PCA is not the issue here. The issue is whether we should afford enemy combatents the same rights that we afford a military member subject to the UCMJ or any other US citizen? I say no.

Yet, MP's read military personnel their rights everyday. No change to Posse Comitatus required. FWIW, Posse Comitatus restrictions are mostly policy restrictions versus legal restrictions and only apply domestically. For example, US military collection assets were used to help track down the snipers in the DC area a few years back; which is using military in a law enforcement capacity. This was all done with SECDEF approval not a law change. And as stated by M2, this is happeniing now. Edit: for clarity and spelling

And you can see from the varying opinions on this thread that the PT test will never be something that all of us agree with. Does it need to be 2 times a year? How about three? What about mandatory unit PT? Should commanders decide that or should it be decided at the puzzle palace? I read AF crimes about a month ago when all this was being discussed and the changes that people wanted ran the gamut from 2 times a year to changing numbers of push-ups/sit-ups req'd to shifting points around to make the run count 60%, etc. Oh, and to add something to the test like the Marines have (an endurance/strength test of sorts), but no, some people wanted a separate endurance/physical test like the Army, IIRC. Who cares? Set a standard. People will live up to it. Don't make it a cake walk, but damn set it and get on with it. This reminds me of all the d@mn uniform changes. Pick one that isn't and leave it alone.

No argument on that from me. Completely agree. Email does not equate to leadership.

Jumangio, not directed at you. To tell the truth, I'm more "disheartened" (to use your word) that everyone at the Deid has to hide behind someone else. A Lt Col actually referenced a policy supposedly released by some E-9 as the reason you couldn't be there? Seriously? Where's the leadership in that? Why didn't he just take the 10 seconds to explain that the building has xyz problem (or whatever) and no one could be in there due to that fact or hell, for that matter, just tell you that he was Lt Col abc and he was telling you to leave. I could at least respect the fact that he was taking responsibility for telling you to leave, but he just pushed that over to some E-9 and made it sound like he was just the messenger. It goes straight back to the title of this thread, Leadership...and that ain't it. 2 thoughts on this: 1) Chiefs don't make policy. Commanders do. 2) When did we all have to start hiding behind somebody else instead of taking responsibility for our own orders and directives? This is the same sort of non-sense that happens all the time at the Deid. It needs to stop.

Look here. Cheapest place I could find for a rental when I was there. But, check Sixt on base and others. Ship the car early (you'll be glad you did). Rentals in the states are cheaper than Europe. You're right; you are in sort of a catch-22. No, TMO doesn't give you any type of voucher. If you can get someone that wants to buy your car and will wait until the day before you leave to take it off your hands, then do that. The gov't will not pay for a rental on the CONUS or OCONUS side. HU&W gave you some good advice about the USAREUR license. Try to work that out before showing up if you can, otherwise, find out what days the test is given through your sponsor, study for the test and make it the first stop when you get to Germany. Probably will have be without a car for the first day, but if the test is given the next day, in the morning, have your sponsor sign you up ahead of time and get in there first thing. You can download the booklet from the USAREUR website and it has practice tests in it. Don't blow it off. It isn't real difficult, but it isn't real easy (if you didn't study). After that pick up that car that you shipped ahead of time and you are set. Get a GPS. BTW, make sure you get a VAT form. Also, make sure that your stateside license will not expire while you are overseas. If your state extends your license based on you being in the military then you are OK (according to an email I got from the Heidelberg RMV), but if not and it expires then you need to get a new one before heading over. That can turn into an expensive proposition if you have to return to the states IOT get a new license. I did notice this last time in Europe that many of the lemon lot car owners really like their cars. Meaning that they want a premium for many of the 10 year old cars on the lemon lot and therefore seem to not to want to really sell them. It used to be you could find a decent older BMW for $2K; now the same car is closer to $4-5K

Can I get a STS?

And I'm sure an unmodified 747 is a great-flying airplane.

Or they are so d@mn beat down by the time they get there that they run out of steam to fight against the man...

Huh? How much longer is he there? I've heard rumors that things aren't going so well.

M2, as said before, is correct. You need dual voltage (100-240V) and multi-system (NTSC and PAL). However, the multi-system only applies if you are trying to watch German or other Euro TV. If your TV is multi-system, it will normally state that somewhere in your owner's manual. BL: Get a plug adapter, get your AFN decoder and sit back and watch your favorite AFN commercials from when you were deployed.

I know it's early in the AM, but Popcorn anyone?

Did you inform said O-5 that the rules allow you to have your hat sticking out of the flight suit pocket so him, his boss and his boss's boss can choke on it?

The date on that ATC form says it best. May '69

That may be, but there are other instances where they have done exactly this. We'll never know until it happens or not. I agree that they are isolated, but when war breaks out that tends to get people to take sides one way or another and what might have been OK yesterday might not be today. Yet, another reason that I don't think NK will do anything stupid, but we'll have to wait and see. No doubt, we wouldn't have a branch plan for this since it can't happen.

Whaaatt? I'm sorry..did your avatar say something? How distracting.

Where is that written? Base Sup? Sounds like someone needs to go take out the PA system or at least destroy that tape/CD.

Agreed, that neither would help with direct military involvement, but I do think that both would supply (give or sell) NK all the weapons they need. Russia still sees a need to mess in the politics of border states. Edit: clarity

The rule actually says something along the lines of GOVs can only be jump started with a GOV and no GOV can be used to jump start a POV. So, it isn't SP specific, but you are 100% correct in the usefullness of SP's in general. I never got a good answer about the Why part either, but that's been around for quite a while and you know how difficult it can be to change institutional momentum.

I don't put much stock in rumors either but have been around long enough to know that there are two sides to every story and your blanket appraisal of "I think it's best to give him the benefit of the doubt" is a little off the mark as well. I don't need to know all the details to know that UCMJ violations won't be made public normally. The Kelly Flinn case is a perfect example. She went public to try and paint the USAF into a corner about pushing her out over adultery, which was true in part. There was more to the story. There were also multiple charges of failing to obey and other violations that she decided to not make public until it benefited here (to sell her book) and the AF couldn't make them public to build it's case. I will not pass judgement on the individual here, but also will not carte blanche say that the military justice system is so corrupt that I can't trust in it either as you have been williing to do. You won't throw the 'respected officer' under the bus, but are willing to throw the entire institution of military justice under the bus for the benefit of one man. That's the difference.

Why? He didn't make it to 20 years (the mandatory lenghth of time to serve and receive a pension) under the system that he signed on the dotted line for. Just talking from a pure he "deserves" standpoint, we all know that if something happens and we don't make it to 20 (excluding medical, etc) that we dont' get shit. It's an all or nothing proposition. He doesn't "deserve" anything. As others have said, you have no idea what he's been charged with so reserve judgement on whether he "deserves" a pension until all the facts are out.

Seriously, sunglasses on one's nugget, or face or neck. WGAS??

You are correct that no supplement can be less restrictive, but if Balad is indeed a "Joint" base, then other services regulations are just as legitimate as the AFI on this subject. Typically, the "owning" service forces others to follow their rules. However, in order to have common guidance, the base commander may have taken the best parts of all the individual service regs and made a decision to allow the USA, or USN, or USMC guidance to take precedence in this area. Therefore publishing guidance that may conflict with one or more individual service regs in order to have common rules that everyone must follow versus each service doing their own thing would seem to me to be a prudent step. Just a guess, but if there are other services there, you probably had over zealous USAF E-8/E-9's cruising around yelling at Joes who are just trying to hack the mission (with associated bitching about USAF gay-ness), so this was an effort to take four different sets of rules and narrow it down to one. Caveat: Haven't seen the guidance that Flip references, but if this is correct, this would be a step in the right direction for many places.

I understand where you are coming from. Realize that the UCMJ gives SP's the authority of the base CC. So, I wouldn't really call it flaunting the UCMJ; however, if they are failing to render proper C&C, point it out. If they refuse to do so, ask for a supervisor. If they won't do that, then go over to the Cop shop and go to the LE desk. Speak to the supervisor and point out the problem, by name. Cops do eat their young. Improper C&C's didn't fly when I was a cop and I'm sure it still doesn't.

Thanks, Finance Guy. I didn't think that they were involved in DTS vouchers, which should be most of everyone's travel. Problems with DTS typically are due to someone at the unit not doing their job ( or additional duty in many cases). I also noted that any late fees that are charged when the gov't is at fault are reimbursed as well. Thanks for the info.