A minor thing that bothered me

[migtig]

about the inauguration yesterday.

I saw military not in the parade but acting as a security detail. Well that's odd. Normally it's parade and figurehead stuff only. Police, state troopers, secret service etc are usually the security.

But then I see it's not getting any real MSM newsplay. Okay, that always sends me out to investigate.

Military plays security support role for inauguration | Article | The United States Army

Excerpt:
While hundreds of thousands of Americans crowd Washington, D.C., city streets this Martin Luther King Day to witness President Barack Obama's second swearing in as president, and then stay on to watch the inaugural parade, thousands of service members will be on the sidelines providing support to the lead federal agencies that have been tasked to provide security for the event.

Woot! Shout out to the military right?

Yeah, but I'm bothered by this:
Excerpt:
Many Guardsmen will first be deputized by the Washington, D.C., police department so they can act in a law enforcement capacity in the nation's capital...

Now, I know they've already taken an oath. So what's this other oath? I know, not a big deal, right? But actually it is. Their duty and oath is not and should not be to the DC police.

This isn't about a conspiracy, though it surely could be turned into one.

It's just about swearing an oath to the police department in DC when they've already sworn an oath to the nation. This isn't about them being cops when they aren't on active duty. This is about them being called to active duty to then have them swear an oath to the city police. That is just wrong. Would you have them swear an oath to the Baghdad Police Department? After all they assist them too.

My two cents.

[So_what]

I can see what you're saying. Wasn't aware that some were deputized by DC police. I was in the first Bush's inaugration parade and all the military that I knew of were just crowd control. ie: lining the parade route not letting people onto the street kind of stuff.

[aps45819]

(D.C. Official Code §4-114) (1981) or R.S.D.C. No. 378 and 379, June 11, 1878 (D.C. Official Code § 4-130) (1981)

[Lurk]

Sounds like a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, right? Naw, it was just a way to avoid the City of Washington from having to pay its police department so much overtime. Nothing like trying to bail out the overbloated budget of the city while spending federal dollars we cannot afford.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[migtig]

Originally Posted by Lurk

Sounds like a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, right?

Yes! I couldn't think of it, but I knew there was something. It just doesn't seem right at all for them to be taking oaths to the Police Department.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by migtig

about the inauguration yesterday.

I saw military not in the parade but acting as a security detail. Well that's odd. Normally it's parade and figurehead stuff only. Police, state troopers, secret service etc are usually the security.

But then I see it's not getting any real MSM newsplay. Okay, that always sends me out to investigate.

Military plays security support role for inauguration | Article | The United States Army

Excerpt:
While hundreds of thousands of Americans crowd Washington, D.C., city streets this Martin Luther King Day to witness President Barack Obama's second swearing in as president, and then stay on to watch the inaugural parade, thousands of service members will be on the sidelines providing support to the lead federal agencies that have been tasked to provide security for the event.

Woot! Shout out to the military right?

Yeah, but I'm bothered by this:
Excerpt:
Many Guardsmen will first be deputized by the Washington, D.C., police department so they can act in a law enforcement capacity in the nation's capital...

Now, I know they've already taken an oath. So what's this other oath? I know, not a big deal, right? But actually it is. Their duty and oath is not and should not be to the DC police.

This isn't about a conspiracy, though it surely could be turned into one.

It's just about swearing an oath to the police department in DC when they've already sworn an oath to the nation. This isn't about them being cops when they aren't on active duty. This is about them being called to active duty to then have them swear an oath to the city police. That is just wrong. Would you have them swear an oath to the Baghdad Police Department? After all they assist them too.

My two cents.

While it was mentioned that they were deputized, it doesn't mentioned anything about them taking an oath for the DC Police.

[migtig]

Originally Posted by awpitt

While it was mentioned that they were deputized, it doesn't mentioned anything about them taking an oath for the DC Police.

Okay then they were deputized to the state police of DC? Who else would they have been "deputized" for when it goes on to say they were planning to perform DC police duties?

Excerpt fromt he article:
Many Guardsmen will first be deputized by the Washington, D.C., police department so they can act in a law enforcement capacity in the nation's capital...

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by migtig

Okay then they were deputized to the state police of DC? Who else would they have been "deputized" for when it goes on to say they were planning to perform DC police duties?

Excerpt fromt he article:
Many Guardsmen will first be deputized by the Washington, D.C., police department so they can act in a law enforcement capacity in the nation's capital...

Please re-read my post. I didn't question the fact that they were deputized by the D.C. Police. That was stated in the article. What wasn't stated was anything about them having to take an oath in order to be deputized.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Lurk

Sounds like a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, right?

I thought it was National Guard members involved, not active duty U.S. Army.


Posse Comitatus Act

The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.

[migtig]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Please re-read my post. I didn't question the fact that they were deputized by the D.C. Police. That was stated in the article. What wasn't stated was anything about them having to take an oath in order to be deputized.

Oh okay. Do you know how you get deputized? By raising your hand and swearing an oath.

Police Oath of Office | Reference.com Answers
The police oath of office is not one lightly taken. Pledging to defend the peace of a nation is important, and the oaths that beginning policemen swear are created to encourage that feeling of importance.First and foremost, a police oath is to protect the laws by which a nation abides - not the PEOPLE of that nation, as so many civilians seem to think, but the laws under which those people live

And how about this:
DVIDS - Images - Troops arriving for Presidential Inauguration support [Image 4 of 7]
National Guardsmen arrive at the District of Columbia National Guard Armory in Washington, D.C., Jan. 18, to process paperwork and swear-in as deputy officers to support the 2013 Presidential Inauguration. Approximately 6,000 soldiers and airmen were deputized to assist local authorities with the inauguration. (Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Ken Johnson)

DVIDS - Images - Virginia Army National Guard members support the Metropolitan Police [Image 2 of 4]
Virginia Army National Guard members support the Metropolitan Police in crowd control at the metro stations during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. These service members were required to swear in before being authorized to assist the police. (Air National Guard photo by Senior Airman Jennifer Hotte)