Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:29:30 -0700, "Admin" wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
word has different (even contradictory) meanings.

The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
... by legal authority."

Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
me.

In Military Circles, when you arrest, you detain whether it be voluntary or
otherwise. For instance, a person that is confined to quarters is arrested,
meaning, prevented from movement. When you aprehend, you place under
restraints involuntarily, usually by detention of some kind.

Incorrect. Art 15 hearings can impose "restriction" on an individual. It is
up to the CO to determine the boundaries and scope of such restriction
as long as it does not rise to the level of "imprisonment".

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

No, they are not. They are detainees who have not been
accused of a crime. Being an illegal combatant is a
status, not a criminal offense. They will be released when
circumstances allow it. Many have already been released.

The boys at gitmo are facing military tribunals. The reason they are facing
military tribunals, is because they were arrested by the military. The
military does not investigate a crime to a standard that could get a
conviction in civilian court.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
authority over civilians.


"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize
and
hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police
have
the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then
you
know nothing of military police.

And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.

Sure and the military told you what they wanted you to believe.

Colin is blowing smoke. The Military can "Arrest" Civilians. They cannot
aprehend them. To arrest is to detain or to cease movement. With a
Civilian, that person may be detained until the appropriate authority
arrives. Usually a Federal Marshal or Federal Magistrate who can give the
Military the aprehension powers by the Magistrates authority.

Arrest gets mixed up with Apprehend. Throw out the Civilian meanings.
Apprehend is to take into custody. You may hear the Cowboys say, "You are
under arrest" in the Military but those that do it for a living will say,
"You are under apprehension". That usually means that there is some kind of
legal action going to be sought by some agency in the Military whether it's
a Court Marshal or an investigation that may or may not clear you. But you
are Aprehended.

An Arrest may become an Apprehension depending.

Clark wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in
|| news:gQ3Ob.84718$na.45260@attbi_s04:
||
||| Clark wrote:
||||| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)
||||| wrote in :
|||||
|||||| On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:
||||||
||||||
||||||| I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise
||||||| legal term but field application of "arrest" may not be. If
||||||| anyone is "held" (prevented from moving at their disgression)
||||||| then it can be succussfully argued that they have been
||||||| arrested. The question to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I
||||||| being detained?" If the answer is detained then you have been
||||||| "arrested" and are due the protections of that status.
||||||
|||||| Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.'
|||||| This is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the
|||||| authority to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
||||||
||||||
||||| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
||||| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have
||||| the authority to arrest.
|||
||| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
||| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
||| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or authority"?
||| I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment becomes an
||| arrest when the arresting individual performs any act that
||| indicates an intention to take the person into custody and subjects
||| the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person
||| making the arrest. The specific determination is highly fact
||| based." Perhaps the distinction would be on how it is clarified in
||| definition in each State? But, the military is still bound by the
||| Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to levels of power afforded.
||| They don't actually 'arrest' but hold until the appropriate agency
||| with the appropriate level of power can do the actual arrest.
||| Well, that's my input, however accurate or inaccurate it may be,
||| and take on the issue of whether or not the military can arrest
||| civilians. It's a matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and
||| the limitations, and the powers of arrest afforded.
||
|| Semantics aside, it seems we agree - if a person is held by military
|| personnel for formal arrest by civilian authority, then the military
|| has arrested that person.

Then you didn't read or comprehend what I wrote. Sometimes words can be
used by society to encompass all things (such as the word *arrest*), but
that doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so. You used 'formal arrest', is
*informal* arrest an arrest in the specific legal definition of the word,
not the all-encompassing definition of society usage?

Clark wrote:
|| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)
|| wrote in :
||
||| On 17 Jan 2004 03:45:40 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:
|||
|||
||||| Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught
||||| by a JAG lawyer.
|||||
|||| Is it possible that you either misunderstood the JAG lawyer or the
|||| JAG lawyer was in error? It wouldn't be the first time for either
|||| case now would it?
|||
||| And why should I regard you as more knowledgable than the course
||| materials?
||
|| Why shouldn't you question course material?
||
|||
||| On one hand I have an expert on military law. On the other hand -
||| you.
||
|| I have consulted lawyers who are officers of the court. Also, I'm
|| not limited by your "training" to see the world only one way.
||
|||
||| What makes you so sure that you know more about this than I do?
|||
|| Reality. Read the pertinent case law or admit the possibility that
|| there are other, quite valid, positions in the argument. Continuing
|| to argue without looking at the question from several angles will
|| get you nowhere. I've already pointed out that you've overlooked the
|| basic source of all arresting authority: citizens arrest...

Please post the citations for the 'pertinent case law'? I'd like to take a
look at them, they are cases involving military police and civilians, right?

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:03:50 GMT, "LawsonE" wrote:

I don't think so.

Three of those four words are true.

Heh. What was the topic again?

Clark wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in
|| news:JthOb.87357$I06.391831@attbi_s01:
snip
|||||| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
|||||| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
|||||| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or
|||||| authority"? I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment
|||||| becomes an arrest when the arresting individual performs any act
|||||| that indicates an intention to take the person into custody and
|||||| subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of
|||||| the person making the arrest. The specific determination is
|||||| highly fact based." Perhaps the distinction would be on how it
|||||| is clarified in definition in each State? But, the military is
|||||| still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
|||||| levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold
|||||| until the appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power
|||||| can do the actual arrest. Well, that's my input, however
|||||| accurate or inaccurate it may be, and take on the issue of
|||||| whether or not the military can arrest civilians. It's a matter
|||||| of definition of the word 'arrest' and the limitations, and the
|||||| powers of arrest afforded.
|||||
||||| Semantics aside, it seems we agree - if a person is held by
||||| military personnel for formal arrest by civilian authority, then
||||| the military has arrested that person.
|||
||| Then you didn't read or comprehend what I wrote.
||
|| You wrote: "detainment becomes an arrest when the arresting
|| individual performs any act that indicates an intention to take the
|| person into custody and subjects the person arrested to the actual
|| control and will of the person making the arrest. The specific
|| determination is highly fact based."

I wrote that I had read that someplace. After that I wrote, "But, the
military is still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold until the
appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power can do the actual
arrest." You didn't read all of it or you just didn't pay attention to it.
Has the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 been revised as was proposed by Sen.
Biden of Del. in 2002? As of that time the prohibition of military
arresting civilians still stood. I found this article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/135458.shtml
If they had or have the power to 'arrest' civilians then why, less than 2
years ago, would a senator want to revise the Act to allow them to arrest?

||
|| Did you mean that or not? Furthermore, since "Colin" reports
|| detainment while holding for civilian authority, is that not arrest?
|| Case law says that it is. Now you may not think the distinction I am
|| making is important but it is because the person the military thinks
|| they have merely detained is in fact due the privileges of a person
|| who is under formal arrest.

Please cite this 'case law' as in-pertinence to the military over civilians.
In the following cases: Whiteley v. Warden 401 US 560 (1971); and, US v.
Hensley 469 US 221 (1985), didn't the holdings in those cases support the
'collective knowledge rule' whereby another officer or agency can be
requested to make the the arrest, the holdings support doing so even if
reasonable suspicion or probable cause does not exist for the action of
detention of the suspect? Correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a link where you
can insert the code to do a search.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

"MP and civilian guards or police employed by the Army have the same
authority to apprehend. Their authority is derived from the installation
commander's inherent authority to maintain order on the installation.....As
the authority for the citizen's arrest is the law of the local jurisdiction
and not AR 600-40, any variance between it and AR 600-40 should be made
clear to all concerned......Limited authority exists to apprehend persons
not subject to the UCMJ"
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...19-10/Ch10.htm (read the
link).

|| More specifically, when case law shows that detainment for a
|| sufficient period is considered arrest and the detained individual
|| is due the protections of an arrested person, then that person is
|| under arrest whether the detaining authority makes formal record of
|| it or not.

If you go into another state are the laws and ordinances the same as in your
state? Do substantive and procedural statutes/laws differ from state to
state? And do not the law enforcement agencies of those states have to
operate according to the procedural and substantive laws of that state? If
you go onto a military installation, does not that installation have to
follow federal guidelines and such in its operation by its personnel? Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878, and US Code.

This is one of those topics that can be debated on and and on, but I have a
terrible sinus headache and am signing off now. Think and believe what you
want, it isn't going to change the reality and fact of the Comitatus Act and
that the military are subject to it.

Have a good night!

On 18 Jan 2004 04:31:02 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:

I'll put it another way. If an American citizen on American soil is detained
by military police and held for civilian authority, that person is considered
by the courts to be under arrest and is due the protections of that status.

FYI, the courts will consider him 'detained.'

The courts use the same definition of 'arrest' that I do.

You can scream all you want about Posse Comitatus, it won't change a thing.

A law that makes it _illegal_ for military personnel to arrest
civilians does not change anything?

The funny thing is that you are so opinionated that you refuse to even
consider it when I tell you how this works in the real world.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"RTO Trainer" wrote in message
om...

Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.


I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

What would that tellme that I am not already very familiar (though not
as familiar as Colin) with?

Please tell me you aren't going to try to equate vernacular usage with
the legal term.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained under a different status.