Case Study #3: Rules of Engagement

an emphatic +1

Remember, 100% PID.

IIRC, no you cannot engage as if you were in Baghdad. You are on US soil, you are on leave, and you are not in uniform. The biggest point is that you are on US soil, and you are not an activated member of a State or Federal Militia (AR/NG) tasked with crowd control or attached to a police department for an emergency situation. The US Military in most cases cannot operate in it's 'normal' functions (exceptions being MP's and investigative units like CID/NCIS, AFIS) without an emergency or declared conventional war, special orders, or an immediate threat. since this individual cannot be fully vetted - one as a citizen of the US may detain, with reason and deliver to the Police/Military Authorities/FBI the suspect.

The Military, without orders cannot operate inside the US Borders for other than training exercises - the noted major exceptions in the recent past are Border Security Operations, or the Activation for Civil Emergencies (Airport Security by the AR/NG). Again these functions are generally performed by State or Federal Militias, in times of duress short of actual warfare on the sovereign soil of the US outside of designated training areas or specified military posts...

In this case, you are a citizen of the US and as such (although better trained) must obey and abide by the laws of the US and the State where this is occurring.

It's NY, he's got more rights than you, even as a terrorist.

That is, IIRC...

Maybe even listed as a protected species. His legal defense fund is already in the billions of dollars.

Self Identified and PID AQ not "reason" enough to detain?
So, the smart play really is to let him go?
Choke.

Good point. If this backfires, the other side is armed for bear.

Personally, I don't know enough about the legalities of a citizen's arrest to detain someone w/o knowing exactly what I'm doing (which I don't). And if that backfires, you're staring down the barrel of a kidnapping charge. Further, you may be trampling over any case that law enforcement may have.

I disagree with the friend that detention and intervening in a direct manner is the best course of action to defend the US domestically. There are resources dedicated to this sort of thing, who are far better at it than I, and the entire situation would be better served by providing them with more eyes and more (complete) intel. :2c:

Not at all - but you cannot use 'unreasonable' force to detain or hold the suspect until the authorities arrive or you can deliver him - again it goes back to who has more rights - the friggin AQ guy could sue the living crap out of you for 'kidnapping' or 'unlawful detention' or even get you prosecuted for a hate crime. I don't have to like it - I just have to know how the game is played, and if any of the rules work against me.

Hell, if it were just up to me - if his bona fides say AQ, shoot him in the face like any other bad guy. Our society doesn't like this, and one must bow to the liberal majority, and the (IMNSHO) unreasonable constraints put upon the law abiding citizens in most jurisdictions.

Also - to sharpen the point - as a soldier, one is held to a higher ethical, moral, and honorable duty than even members (take that one as you might, I believe the scatalogical reference in the light of the current news items to be very telling) of Congress/Senators, or elected politicians.

Best answer yet, but how do we follow? Taxi is a crap shoot maybe. You'd probably have to be getting in one at the same time to follow in NY traffic. And, could be a setup. It's all redundant, anyway, because like Marauder says:

I was under the impression the "positive ID" was more the train of thought of the people involved in the scenario rather than an actual positive ID supported by actual evidence.

As has been said, it's an LE issue, not a Mil issue. Likely there will be cameras around so hopefully he has been captured on CCTV. I understand many cabs have cameras now too, though I'm not sure on that.

The best bet is to WRITE DOWN as many details as you can ASAP after the event, including times and actions. So basically a report. Call whatever hotline you guys have over there and tell them. As an aside, to make sure the info got sent through, I would also send it through the Army CID (? Not sure if that's the right unit) since then it's more likely to be taken more seriously if you send it through official channels. Sad but true.

As also mentioned, there's the possibility that he is part of a larger investigation, which you don't want to blow. That's where a detailed and timely report helps, too.

At the end of the day he might be a poser, he might not be. It's not for you as Joe Bloggs on the street to decide; it's for the police/FLE to decide.

One could catch a troll, and sick/attach him on the AQ subject. Death by Troll is ignored by most modern societies. The coroner would probably list it as suicide. You would go free, the troll could go back to imbibing on beverages that he forgot to share with poor misfortune Oregonians.

Here's some stuff from the FBI website:

Choke (again)!
Sort of a FU, Have a nice day.

Okay, I had to see it for myself, point taken.
No emergency number anywhere (that I could find). Just drop an email, and maybe we'll get to it.
No human "hotline" number for tips, nothing.
:doh:

They do say to contact your local field office, get ahold of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or ask to speak with the Counterintelligence Domain Coordinator.

But this may also may influence your decision:

https://tips.fbi.gov/
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/waronterrorhome.htm

No surprise there. But guarenteed the FBI will take credit for the capture, if and when this clown is caught.

That's what's nice about Shadowspear! I always learn something good, and it always makes me think...'specialy when Marauder's writing.
I am nieve to this stuff, to think the system would actually be something other than FUBAR. (can I still use that word?).
Too many John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart movies, I guess.

The US Army JAG issued a "Memorandum of Law" in 1989 to try to provide some guidance with regard to Executive Order 12333--the prohibition of assassination as a matter of national policy--because EO 12333 does not define what constitutes "assassination."

The memorandum concludes that the use of military force against legitimate targets that threaten US citizens or national security as determined by the President does not constitute assassination and would therefore not be prohibited by EO 12333.

The SF sergeant accused in this case was killing an enemy.

The point is to get away with it

Huh?

"The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited."
-The Hague Convention, Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 25.