4 ms·

Can you cite a source for this information?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bmelton 13y ago
Yes (this isn't meant to be sarcastic, but necessary because I had to move this post from where it was to where it is, and HN keeps marking it dead). The DHS is not bound by Posse Comitatus[1]. The DHS has been buying massive amounts of ammo[2][3][4], and most recently, the House has voted to get justification on the quantity of hollow points it is purchasing[5]. It looks like the claim that they're buying large quantities of urban armored vehicles is wrong[4], though they do acknowledge that they possess them, though my Google-fu is on the fritz getting a source for that since all searches for "DHS armored vehicles" returns the wrong conspiracy theory. The DHS was using 'no more hesitation' targets that look like citizens[6][7]. Of note, link 7 implies that the manufacturer took them off the site, but the manufacturer never claimed that they were no longer for sale, or that they were no longer being sold directly to DHS, even when asked that question directly. I have no direct knowledge either way. The ammo they've been buying is hollow-point[2][3], and hollow point ammo is illegal per Geneva convention (is actually wrong, it's illegal based on the Hague convention, the point stands true either way... Hague just predates Geneva)[8] I think that's all of it. Let me know if I missed anything. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [2] - http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-ammo-conspiracy/ http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-ammo-cons... [3] - http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04... [4] - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp [5] - http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-votes-to-delay-bulk-ammo-purchase-by-dhs http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-vot... [6] - http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2013/feb/28/dhs-training-practice-targets-featuring-children-p/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tid... [7] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-enforcement-targets-inc-discontinues http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-enforcement-targets-in... [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality
- philwelch 13y ago
  What style of ammunition is standard police issue? Hollowpoint? FMJ?
  - bmelton 13y ago
    As with all things, it varies, but hollow points and sabot rounds tend to be popular due to their better record on overpenetration. Frangible rounds provide a far lower likelihood than an errant shot will punch through the wall and kill whatever's on the other side of it (which is why they're also the preferred rounds for home defense and such too).
- davidcuddeback 13y ago
  Thanks. I'm not being snarky or anything either. Just genuinely curious and would like to learn more on the topic. That said, I just looked at your first source and it doesn't support the conclusion that the DHS is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. It says that the US Coast Guard is exempt, and that the US Coast Guard operates under the DHS. But it does not follow from those statements that the DHS is exempt.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I could be wrong, or they could be bound by some other statute, but as I understand it, DHS is not exempt because it is neither a division of the Department of Defense, nor is it an "armed service" like the Marines. The Coast Guard is not bound by Posse Comitatus despite being an 'armed force' because they are members of DHS, and not DoD. The ATF and FBI are not bound by Posse Comitatus also, as they aren't armed forces (though both probably have some degree of armament; I know the ATF was playing around with getting a few armored cars the last time I was there, and they already had some 'surveillance' trucks based on ambulances), and that is why FBI, DHS and ATF are able to engage local police in an assistive fashion (or take over a case).
    - davidcuddeback 13y ago
      The Wikipedia page isn't very clear in either direction regarding DHS. Based on the description of the Posse Comitatus Act, it sounds like your interpretation would be correct. It says that Posse Comitatus (PCA) limits the federal government's powers to use federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. My interpretation of that is that it applies to military forces. The Coast Guard is a military force. DHS, I believe, is not. The reason the Coast Guard is exempt from PCA is not due to it being under DHS. (That's a side issue.) It's because the Coast Guard is charged with a law enforcement mission. It says that right in the Wikipedia article. And that makes sense too. PCA says "don't use military for law enforcement." US Coast Guard has a law enforcement mission, so it must have an exemption in order to fulfil that mission. Likewise, ATF and FBI are law enforcement agencies (not military forces). So it makes sense that it doesn't apply to them as well. The big question is whether DHS is a military force or not. I don't think they are. I could be wrong. If they're not a military force, I don't see the problem with them not being bound by the PCA. The PCA is specifically for military forces. Regarding the rest of your sources, [2,3,5] seem to confirm that DHS is buying a lot of ammo. But I don't see anything nefarious there. Note that [2] is an editorial (an opinion piece). None of the sources mention that DHS is purchasing hollow-point bullets. The Snopes page [4] mentions that the SSA is purchasing hollow-point bullets, but not DHS. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if DHS was purchasing hollow-point bullets. The reason hollow-point bullets are banned in international warfare is because they increase the likelihood that a combatant is killed rather than just maimed. A full-metal jacket bullet will maim a combatant so that he is unable to continue fighting, but with a lower chance of killing him. Police forces tend to use hollow-point bullets because they reduce the risk to innocent bystanders (less chance of going through walls or ricocheting). Different tools for different jobs. Regarding the "hestitate no more" targets, the sources [6,7] don't support the claim that DHS is using them. The first source [6], is an opinion piece. First, let's apply Betteridge's Law [] to the headline. The answer is probably, "No, 'DHS [is probably not] training with practice targets featuring children, pregnant woman [sic].'" Looking at the content of [6], all it really says is DHS buys targets from Law Enforcement Targets, Inc, and Law Enforcement Targets, Inc released a product line that features targets that display children, pregnant women, etc. It doesn't follow from those two statements that DHS is purchasing exactly* those products. They could be purchasing a different product line from the same company. The second source [7], just states that Law Enforcement Targets, Inc makes "hesitate no more" targets. It doesn't mention DHS. In fact, a quote from the company says that the product was designed based on requests from police forces. One point that you didn't provide any sources for is the DHS practising "live-fire drills in and over major cities." Does "over" major cities imply they have military aircraft? I'm not sure what you meant by that. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the particular sources that you've chosen don't support your conclusions. DHS isn't my favorite government agency either, but I see no conspiracy here. [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Yes (this isn't meant to be sarcastic, but necessary because I had to move this post from where it was to where it is, and HN keeps marking it dead). The DHS is not bound by Posse Comitatus[1]. The DHS has been buying massive amounts of ammo[2][3][4], and most recently, the House has voted to get justification on the quantity of hollow points it is purchasing[5]. It looks like the claim that they're buying large quantities of urban armored vehicles is wrong[4], though they do acknowledge that they possess them, though my Google-fu is on the fritz getting a source for that since all searches for "DHS armored vehicles" returns the wrong conspiracy theory. The DHS was using 'no more hesitation' targets that look like citizens[6][7]. Of note, link 7 implies that the manufacturer took them off the site, but the manufacturer never claimed that they were no longer for sale, or that they were no longer being sold directly to DHS, even when asked that question directly. I have no direct knowledge either way. The ammo they've been buying is hollow-point[2][3], and hollow point ammo is illegal per Geneva convention (is actually wrong, it's illegal based on the Hague convention, the point stands true either way... Hague just predates Geneva)[8] I think that's all of it. Let me know if I missed anything. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [2] - http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-ammo-conspiracy/ http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-ammo-cons... [3] - http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04... [4] - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp [5] - http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-votes-to-delay-bulk-ammo-purchase-by-dhs http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-vot... [6] - http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2013/feb/28/dhs-training-practice-targets-featuring-children-p/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tid... [7] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-enforcement-targets-inc-discontinues http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-enforcement-targets-in... [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

philwelch 13y ago
What style of ammunition is standard police issue? Hollowpoint? FMJ?
- bmelton 13y ago
  As with all things, it varies, but hollow points and sabot rounds tend to be popular due to their better record on overpenetration. Frangible rounds provide a far lower likelihood than an errant shot will punch through the wall and kill whatever's on the other side of it (which is why they're also the preferred rounds for home defense and such too).
davidcuddeback 13y ago
Thanks. I'm not being snarky or anything either. Just genuinely curious and would like to learn more on the topic. That said, I just looked at your first source and it doesn't support the conclusion that the DHS is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. It says that the US Coast Guard is exempt, and that the US Coast Guard operates under the DHS. But it does not follow from those statements that the DHS is exempt.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I could be wrong, or they could be bound by some other statute, but as I understand it, DHS is not exempt because it is neither a division of the Department of Defense, nor is it an "armed service" like the Marines. The Coast Guard is not bound by Posse Comitatus despite being an 'armed force' because they are members of DHS, and not DoD. The ATF and FBI are not bound by Posse Comitatus also, as they aren't armed forces (though both probably have some degree of armament; I know the ATF was playing around with getting a few armored cars the last time I was there, and they already had some 'surveillance' trucks based on ambulances), and that is why FBI, DHS and ATF are able to engage local police in an assistive fashion (or take over a case).
  - davidcuddeback 13y ago
    The Wikipedia page isn't very clear in either direction regarding DHS. Based on the description of the Posse Comitatus Act, it sounds like your interpretation would be correct. It says that Posse Comitatus (PCA) limits the federal government's powers to use federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. My interpretation of that is that it applies to military forces. The Coast Guard is a military force. DHS, I believe, is not. The reason the Coast Guard is exempt from PCA is not due to it being under DHS. (That's a side issue.) It's because the Coast Guard is charged with a law enforcement mission. It says that right in the Wikipedia article. And that makes sense too. PCA says "don't use military for law enforcement." US Coast Guard has a law enforcement mission, so it must have an exemption in order to fulfil that mission. Likewise, ATF and FBI are law enforcement agencies (not military forces). So it makes sense that it doesn't apply to them as well. The big question is whether DHS is a military force or not. I don't think they are. I could be wrong. If they're not a military force, I don't see the problem with them not being bound by the PCA. The PCA is specifically for military forces. Regarding the rest of your sources, [2,3,5] seem to confirm that DHS is buying a lot of ammo. But I don't see anything nefarious there. Note that [2] is an editorial (an opinion piece). None of the sources mention that DHS is purchasing hollow-point bullets. The Snopes page [4] mentions that the SSA is purchasing hollow-point bullets, but not DHS. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if DHS was purchasing hollow-point bullets. The reason hollow-point bullets are banned in international warfare is because they increase the likelihood that a combatant is killed rather than just maimed. A full-metal jacket bullet will maim a combatant so that he is unable to continue fighting, but with a lower chance of killing him. Police forces tend to use hollow-point bullets because they reduce the risk to innocent bystanders (less chance of going through walls or ricocheting). Different tools for different jobs. Regarding the "hestitate no more" targets, the sources [6,7] don't support the claim that DHS is using them. The first source [6], is an opinion piece. First, let's apply Betteridge's Law [] to the headline. The answer is probably, "No, 'DHS [is probably not] training with practice targets featuring children, pregnant woman [sic].'" Looking at the content of [6], all it really says is DHS buys targets from Law Enforcement Targets, Inc, and Law Enforcement Targets, Inc released a product line that features targets that display children, pregnant women, etc. It doesn't follow from those two statements that DHS is purchasing exactly* those products. They could be purchasing a different product line from the same company. The second source [7], just states that Law Enforcement Targets, Inc makes "hesitate no more" targets. It doesn't mention DHS. In fact, a quote from the company says that the product was designed based on requests from police forces. One point that you didn't provide any sources for is the DHS practising "live-fire drills in and over major cities." Does "over" major cities imply they have military aircraft? I'm not sure what you meant by that. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the particular sources that you've chosen don't support your conclusions. DHS isn't my favorite government agency either, but I see no conspiracy here. [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines