U.S. Army Posts Job Listing For "93E Internment/Resettlement Specailist".
278 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613554]FYI The National Guard does emergency support, it does not maintain civilian prisons and jails under any circumstances. There is absolutely no reason for a military force to have guards "on standby" so they can send them to disaster areas and lock people up.[/QUOTE]
Answer the damn question, do you know what a Stockade in the military?
Also you act as if this job position is new, despite it being around for atleast a decade
[QUOTE=Broseph_;16613540]Do you know what a fucking stockade is?[/QUOTE]
A stockade is a wall.
Also
They are very small military detainment centers designed to operate in harmony with standard military personnel on a federally funded and operated base. They are designed specifically to house small numbers of detainees and, in turn, require less manpower to operate. Like normal jails, the detainees are typically there temporarily until they are put on trial for their crimes. Depending on the severity of the crime they MAY be tried by a military tribunal or a civilian trial, at which point they are sent on their way or to a federal prison.
Stockades are not prisons, they are brigs. Most of the occupants of a stockade are there for petty crimes like minor vandalism or military code violations. Manning one is a post, not a specific job. Being a guard in a brig is no more a permanent job than being the guy on the east watchtower. They don't advertise that they're "looking for East Watchtower Observation Experts" because they just assign that job to somebody on the base.
[editline]09:07PM[/editline]
Also clearly you're done arguing right.
[editline]09:07PM[/editline]
Because you said "I'm done arguing" like two dozen times I just want to make sure.
This thread should be remaned "Lankist Vs Broseph - This time, it's Pointless"
Unless you want to throw more random references to acts that you do not understand.
FYI that careers page is bullshit anyway. You don't join the Army and tell them that you want to be a VISUAL INFORMATION EQUIPMENT OPERATOR-MAINTAINER. They would probably want idiots to think that they can walk in and say "hey dudes I know how to wheel an A/V setup around the base sign me up," but that isn't what happens. You enlist, go through Basic, and then the Army decides what they want to use you for with no input on your part.
Odds are they give you a gun and tell you what to point it at.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613664]A stockade is a wall.
Also
They are very small military detainment centers designed to operate in harmony with standard military personnel on a federally funded and operated base. They are designed specifically to house small numbers of detainees and, in turn, require less manpower to operate. Like normal jails, the detainees are typically there temporarily until they are put on trial for their crimes. Depending on the severity of the crime they MAY be tried by a military tribunal or a civilian trial, at which point they are sent on their way or to a federal prison.
Stockades are not prisons, they are brigs. Most of the occupants of a stockade are there for petty crimes like minor vandalism or military code violations. Manning one is a post, not a specific job. Being a guard in a brig is no more a permanent job than being the guy on the east watchtower. They don't advertise that they're "looking for East Watchtower Observation Experts" because they just assign that job to somebody on the base.[/QUOTE]
E31 Internment Resettlement(Formerly 95C Corrections) Specialist Responsibilities:
* Assist with the supervision and management of confinement and detention operations
* Provide external security to confinement/corrections facilities or detention/internment facilities
* Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program
* Prepare or review reports and records of prisoners/internees and program
Also the military does Operate a Prison.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Disciplinary_Barracks[/url]
(or USDB, popularly known as Leavenworth, the DB, or the Castle) is a military prison located on Fort Leavenworth, a United States Army post in Kansas. The prison should not be confused with the nearby United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth located a few miles south.
The USDB is the U.S. military's only maximum-security facility and houses male servicemembers convicted at court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Only enlisted prisoners with sentences over five years, commissioned officers, and prisoners convicted of offenses related to national security are confined to the USDB. Enlisted prisoners with sentences under five years are housed in smaller facilities, such as the Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Knox, Kentucky or the Marine Corps Brig at Quantico, Virginia.
Originally known as the United States Military Prison, the USDB was established by Act of Congress in 1874. Prisoners were used for the majority of construction, which began in 1875 and was completed in 1921
[I]"Guards for the prison are Army "corrections specialists" trained at the U.S. Army Military Police school located at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, as well as Marine and Air Force corrections personnel."[/I]
Note, E31 Internment/resettlement Specialist were known before 2005 as [I]95C Corrections Specialist.[/I]
Now shut the fuck up.
Please stop quoting Wikipedia without reading my posts.
[editline]09:15PM[/editline]
And no I will not shut up. I want to get back to this whole you referencing The Posse Comitatus Act and acting like you know what it means.
When you're talking to a lawyer.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613815]Please stop quoting Wikipedia without reading my posts.
[editline]09:15PM[/editline]
And no I will not shut up. I want to get back to this whole you referencing The Posse Comitatus Act and acting like you know what it means.
When you're talking to a lawyer.[/QUOTE]
I was being ignorant and not bothering to think that if I refer to something as a part of a example of rationale it will just have you open up a whole new ground of debate.
[editline]08:20PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613772]FYI that careers page is bullshit anyway. You don't join the Army and tell them that you want to be a VISUAL INFORMATION EQUIPMENT OPERATOR-MAINTAINER. They would probably want idiots to think that they can walk in and say "hey dudes I know how to wheel an A/V setup around the base sign me up," but that isn't what happens. You enlist, go through Basic, and then the Army decides what they want to use you for with no input on your part.
Odds are they give you a gun and tell you what to point it at.[/QUOTE]
That's career's page is bullshit? why is it bullshit, it's a valid job.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;16613869]I was being ignorant and not bothering to think that if I refer to something as a part of a example of rationale it will just have you open up a whole new ground of debate.[/QUOTE]
You referred to it out of its context. It's like you googled it and that was the first result.
I am still reveling in victory from yesterday and this is an extension of that. You think you can out-reference me? You get all of your references from wiki fucking pedia for christs sakes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613909]You referred to it out of its context. It's like you googled it and that was the first result.
I am still reveling in victory from yesterday and this is an extension of that. You think you can out-reference me? You get all of your references from wiki fucking pedia for christs sakes.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry Wikipedia is not up to your standards.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;16613869]That's career's page is bullshit? why is it bullshit, it's a valid job.[/QUOTE]
You don't join the army with the intention of being a Military Guide Illustrator, whatever job you get isn't up to you.
[editline]09:22PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;16613929]I'm sorry Wikipedia is not up to your standards.[/QUOTE]
And I'm sorry you're still arguing between saying you aren't arguing.
Anything on Fox news about this yet?
Took it to PM's and somehow we ended up discussing the legal definitions of "destructive devices" and "Firearms" on the subject of importing firearms and who is and is not exempt from sections of Title 27 of the US Code.
So that accomplished a lot. Thanks "take it to PM's" guy.
[editline]02:07AM[/editline]
Really that was a super good idea dude.
[editline]02:07AM[/editline]
Not really though we totally veered off topic.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16613815]
When you're talking to a lawyer.[/QUOTE]
Hey, that's cheating. You could probably use your lawyer skills to argue that raping babies is everyone's moral obligation and win.
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;16618281]Hey, that's cheating. You could probably use your lawyer skills to argue that raping babies is everyone's moral obligation and win.[/QUOTE]
I really could.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16584121]There are no "military prisons" that the National Guard runs on U.S. soil, not any legal ones anyway.
It is illegal for any branch of the military to operate like that. We have a civilian police and justice system for a reason. The military is constitutionally forbidden from taking part. Their job is exclusively overseas and/or on established military bases, which do not house prison complexes. Most people tried by the military serve time in a small local military facility or in a normal, civilian-operated prison. The National Guard doesn't really have any need for prison guards, they aren't supposed to be involved in prisons at all.[/QUOTE]
"george, we can't bail out those companies. it goes against the separation of the public and private sector described in the constitu- agh, fuck it."
What separation of the public and private sector described in the constitution?
Specifically.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619216]What separation of the public and private sector described in the constitution?
Specifically.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [b]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b][/quote]
before you say that is only applicable to trial and punishment, there is a comma there.
trial and punishment AND compensation for takings
two different topics in one amendment
[quote]Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [b]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/b]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote]
[quote]Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/quote]
anddd nothing about the congress having power to seize any business or corporation
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec4[/url]
all quotes from this page in case anyone wants to call modification
That has absolutely nothing to do with corporate bailout.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
They seized nothing.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
I've come to my conclusion and it is that you are dumb.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619351]That has absolutely nothing to do with corporate bailout.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
They seized nothing.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
I've come to my conclusion and it is that you are dumb.[/QUOTE]
incorrect sir.
as of now the government seized a pretty decent percentage of GM and AIG stock
even though they plan on selling it doesn't mean they had the right to begin with
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090528/AUTO01/905280476/1148/GM/Government-to-swap-$40B-for-GM-stock
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602075.html[/url]
and yes, i do know a lot more about the GM situation than 99% of facepunch
my both of my grandfathers worked there for 40+ years and have retirement plans with them; those are currently being compromised though
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
without just compensation.
without
just compensation.
They paid for it with money just like anyone or thing can pay for stocks on the public market.
[editline]03:55AM[/editline]
I'm not saying I agree with it but to say it's unconstitutional is stupid. People like you who throw the constitution around like it's your personal justification for whining about everything forever are the ones who are degrading its integrity.
[editline]03:55AM[/editline]
You are wrong.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619402]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
without just compensation.
without
just compensation.
They paid for it with money just like anyone or thing can pay for stocks on the public market.
[editline]03:55AM[/editline]
I'm not saying I agree with it but to say it's unconstitutional is stupid. People like you who throw the constitution around like it's your personal justification for whining about everything forever are the ones who are degrading its integrity.
[editline]03:55AM[/editline]
You are wrong.[/QUOTE]
whatever, all different to whoever's interpretation
[QUOTE=Ca5bah;16619443]whatever, all different to whoever's interpretation[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. The constitution isn't fucking up to interpretation. It is very precise and clear. That's why we fucking scrapped the Articles of Confederation to begin with.
You can have an "interpretation" all you want but it's still wrong.
And you're still degrading the integrity of the constitution.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619455]No it isn't. The constitution isn't fucking up to interpretation. It is very precise and clear. That's why we fucking scrapped the Articles of Confederation to begin with.
You can have an "interpretation" all you want but it's still wrong.
And you're still degrading the integrity of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
not really chalk boy
what exactly is a judge's job?
to interpret the law and act to the best of their ability upon this interpretation
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge[/url]
[quote]A judge, or arbiter of justice, is a lead official who presides over a court of law, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is like an umpire in a game and conducts the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility of the parties, [b]and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgement.[/b]In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury, although this practice is starting to be phased out in some regions.[/quote]
You aren't a judge FYI
[editline]04:09AM[/editline]
Stop agreeing with your own posts, you aren't fooling anyone.
[editline]04:10AM[/editline]
So you're telling me a judge is going to "interpret" the constitution as in completely ignore the "just compensation" part and absolutely NO mention of the government taking stock in corporate interests.
[editline]04:11AM[/editline]
Or: You're dumb and you don't know what you're talking about.
[editline]04:11AM[/editline]
Occam, old friend, which one of these two possibilities is the most likely?
[editline]04:12AM[/editline]
Also FYI judges do not interpret the constitution, the constitution is the absolute to which they use to interpret everything else.
[editline]04:13AM[/editline]
The Supreme Court's entire job is to interpret laws in terms of constitutionality, which is an impossibility if the constitution is not tread like the absolute basis of all law in the nation.
(It is by the way)
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619544]You aren't a judge FYI
[editline]04:09AM[/editline]
Stop agreeing with your own posts, you aren't fooling anyone.
[editline]04:10AM[/editline]
So you're telling me a judge is going to "interpret" the constitution as in completely ignore the "just compensation" part and absolutely NO mention of the government taking stock in corporate interests.
[editline]04:11AM[/editline]
Or: You're dumb and you don't know what you're talking about.
[editline]04:11AM[/editline]
Occam, old friend, which one of these two possibilities is the most likely?
[editline]04:12AM[/editline]
Also FYI judges do not interpret the constitution, the constitution is the absolute to which they use to interpret everything else.
[editline]04:13AM[/editline]
The Supreme Court's entire job is to interpret laws in terms of constitutionality, which is an impossibility if the constitution is not tread like the absolute basis of all law in the nation.
(It is by the way)[/QUOTE]
with all those edits it seems like you have a hard time trying to think of ways to dissect my posts
No I am editing because your incomprehensibly inept understanding of our system of law works is so astounding that I honestly don't know which of the dozens of flaws in your logic to start with.
[editline]04:17AM[/editline]
So I start with all of them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16619617]No I am editing because your incomprehensibly inept understanding of our system of law works is so astounding that I honestly don't know which of the dozens of flaws in your logic to start with.
[editline]04:17AM[/editline]
So I start with all of them.[/QUOTE]
this may be rough for you but,
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Institutional_powers_and_constraints[/url]
[quote]That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general government") and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, [b]the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. [/b]Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.[/quote]
[quote]The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects. The Taney Court is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the case which may have helped precipitate the United States Civil War. [b]In the years following the Civil War, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States).[/b][/quote]
[quote]During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), [b]the court gained its own accommodation and [u]radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution[/u] in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal[/b] (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn), giving an expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government.[/quote]
[quote]The Court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
[b]to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal [u]Constitution[/u][/b]
to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.
When a [b]conflict of interpretations arises from differing[u] interpretations [/u]of the same law or [u]constitutional[/u] provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split".[/b] If the Court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.[/quote]
[quote]Criticisms
Judicial activism is the charge that judges are going beyond their powers and are making (instead of interpreting) the law. It is the antithesis of judicial restraint. Judicial activism is not restricted to any particular ideological or political point of view. American history has included periods in which the Supreme Court was accused of conservative judicial activism, and also of liberal activism.[37]
Howard Zinn presents the idea that the overall history of the Court, especially during the period between the Civil War and the Great Depression, should be viewed as one of mostly conservative activism in the defense of property rights. The case most often invoked as an example of conservative judicial activism is Lochner v. New York, a 1905 case that invalidated a New York law regulating the hours bakers could work as a violation of liberty of contract, a part of the doctrine of Substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.[37] This decision elevated the concept of "liberty of contract" to a dogmatic stance of the Court for over thirty years.
On the other hand, starting primarily with the Supreme Court's 1961 decision in Mapp v. Ohio, which established the exclusionary rule in state criminal proceedings, many conservatives have portrayed the Supreme Court as a haven for liberal judicial activism. This has especially been the case since the advent of the Warren Court and the revolution in civil liberties, but the charge has continued to the Burger Court and even into the Rehnquist Court. The argument is that in the name of expanding the "rights" a majority of justices find agreeable, the Court is twisting the Constitution by disregarding the original meaning of the due process and equal protections clauses in order to reach a desired result. One case which is often invoked by critics as an example of liberal activism is Roe v. Wade in 1973, where the Court struck down restrictive abortion laws as violating the "right to privacy" that the Court had previously found inherent in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[37]
[b][u]According to Zinn, however, of the 20th century Courts only the Stone, Vinson, Warren, and to a lesser extent the Burger Courts (a time frame ranging approximately from 1941 to 1986) could be seen as leaning more toward a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its guarantees,[/u][/b] but not in every opinion.[38][/quote]
i'm done
1: GG wikipedia
2: None of those had to do with such an "interpretation" that you imply. Those were all changes to inference made in regards to indirect implications the Constitution has.
What you have implied is a new "interpretation" of something that is clearly and visibly stated right there in the bill of rights.
Lovely, another debate, also Lankist, why did you go offline on steam?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
