Talk:Posse Comitatus (organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   The coverage of this subject-Posse Comitatus-reads like something written by a law enforcement propagandist rather than an objective journalist. The fact that Wikipedia chooses to report this as such concerns me. 
   I have personally had experience with a woman who was an accomplished CPA who was employed by the organization to represent beleaguered citizens in their battles with the IRS and its abusive approach to enforcement. According to her, Posse Comitatus won out several times against the IRS,a fact that the courts would not want known publicly. Even though this person was offered a high paying position with the IRS she preferred instead to work for the people who had just cause for grievances against a government agency that victimized them.
   There have been substantial gains won against the IRS and other federal agencies in their campaign against citizens who stand up for their rights, but the courts and the media seem to conspire to conveniently omit these stories from publication. 
   In our country-the US- we are no longer guaranteed freedom of speech as it is very hard to distinguish between a genuinely objective authority, and the pro diatribe of any large corporate interest who has financial influence within this country or even internationally. 
   There is a concern among many in the US that our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are under attack by a secretive and militarily prone federal government. Such organizations as Posse Comitatus, Sovereign Citizens, UFO researchers, etc. are treated by the federal government and it's step child, the mass media as extremists or subversives when many times we are not given the entire story.
    Wikipedia, as I see it, has not only a journalistic responsibility but an ethical duty to report subjects not only with objectivity, but also with a jaundiced eye when it comes to the sources of the information covered. There are websites such as Quatloos which are no more than the  tools of federal government enforcement who try to falsely persuade the reader about which legal side of the fence tax abuses have occurred on. Readers should beware of this propaganda. It stifles Americans from having the courage to stand up for their legal rights. Those who organize based upon the original constitutional principles of this nation, be it under the realm of common law or whatever might perturb the courts are not automatic criminals to be painted as such by the national media acting in consort with an overbearing government that no longer views the US Constitution as a primary legal source to uphold.

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus is a right wing group in the United States that considers the U.S. federal government illegitimate and does not recognize the authority of any government body below the county level.

The Posse is not a cult. It is a right-wing social movement. I know of no serious scholarly treatment of the Posse that calls it a cult. It does not belong on the list. --Cberlet 23:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone regards the Posse as a religious movement. Unfortunately, the definitions of harmful cults and hate groups overlap. Al Qaeda is also on the list even though it is more similar to the Posse than to a "new religious movement". The material move from above is part of a re-structuring of the list based on a taxonomy of sources. Having descriptions of groups at that article created a set of "POV forks", where editors were making assertions about groups that, like this one, would not stand up to review by editors familiar with the groups. In fact, I added the Posse myself because it is included in a series done by the Washington Post on cults. And then another editor came in and added the description, which I think is actually pretty good. I'll go back and reread the exact citation, which could say that the Posse is not a cult at all but instead a hate group. Al Qaeda is almost certain to be removed because it lost its source and because it doesn't fit the description well. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
See also: Talk:List of purported cults for taxonomy. -W
I wouldn't call Posse Commitatus a hate group, though I'm sure there are bigots who are members, given its right wingness and lack of membership criteria, but if we count the fact that David Duke got 10,000 Democrat votes in the 1992 NH primary (and 57 republican votes), should we label the Democratic Party a hate group? Unless the movement itself clearly expouses intolerance of races, religion, etc. it shouldn't be called a hate group.69.173.101.181 04:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


One of the reasons these people hate the federal government is that they beleive that it is run by Jews, who are an evil race in leauge with the devil. They also beleive that white Europeans are superior to the colored "mud" races. What else do they really need to be classified as a hate group? - AMD

Contents

[edit] Is it fascist? (probably not)

 WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which has not come to power as "fascist" if it fulfills six of the following criteria:
  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
  6. advocating totalitarian systems.
  7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page.

I argue that Posse Comitatus fulfills the first four of these criteria, but not the last three. Thoughts? Stlemur 21:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources for this claim? While many members of the Posse were in Christian Identity, it was not a criteria for membership in all formations. There was no organized national leadership. It rejected federal power and thought law enforcement hit its top rank on the county level. Is there a single scholarly source that calls the Posse fascist? Created by racists, yes, prone to violence, yes, but fascist? Cite please.--Cberlet 22:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
On closer examination of the Anti-Defamation League's article on PC and the Sovereign Citizen Movement I'm inclined to withdraw claims 1 and 2; I think I was getting tangled up between PC and the "Sheriff's Posse Comitatus" group which was distinct. However, an SPLC report does assert that PC was intrinsically a racist group.
Incidentally, I was led to this movement by its Category:Neo-Nazism tag. In light of this discussion, should that go? Stlemur 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the the Posse Comitatus is not a neonazi group. The "Sheriff's Posse Comitatus" is just another name for a branch of the Posse Comitatus. There was a lot of hyperbolic and very sloppy reporting about this movement. Most of the Watchdog groups are now much more careful in their reporting.--Cberlet 00:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Anarchist is more like it;; Where is the social regementation? Where is the restriction on economic systems? No, it is less regulated, not more. Fascism is centralized, this movement is localized. It doesn't exalt nation, it ceases to recognize it's authority! How could anyone confuse this? 207.202.227.125 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

This page claims "posse comitatus" means "power of the country"; some websites have that while others have "power of the county". Both seem fishy to me. _comitatus_ looks like a participle, not a genitive. I always thought it meant "constituted power" or some such. The websites may just be copying each other. Can anyone resolve this? --Trovatore 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Power of the county" is correct. "Comitatus" is indeed the genitive case of comitatus, a county, from comes, comitis, a count; originally a county was the fief or jurisdiction of a count. Comitatus is a u-stem, so the genitive is comitatūs. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign Citizen Movement

I've added a couple of paragraphs about the Sovereign Citizen movement. (We used to have a separate article about the SCM, but it was changed to a redirect to this article in May 2005.) Most of my information comes from section 5 of the ADL Militia Watchdog Message to Students page.

I also added a para about the redemption movement. I used Beyond Redemption, a SPLC intelligence report, as my main source, but I know this movement has been covered in lots of places, including Time magazine.

Corrections and additions to this new section are very welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

These seem to me to be very biased sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.238.121 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Sovereign Citizen Movement is now a proper article again ... and could use some improvement (hint hint). Cheers, CWC 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racists

In the "Sovereign Citizens" section, there is a sentence that reads "the movement is dominated by adherents of Christian Identity and other racists." While this statement may very well be true, the word 'racist' is a very emotionally loaded one and I don't think it belongs here. The passage should read fine without this part, and I will remove it. --Walther Atkinson 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The ADL link "message to students" is as misguided as any; "the ideology itself is not racist and does not imply racism. In fact, in some states such as North and South Carolina, there are African-American groups which have adopted the sovereign citizen philosophy." The reasoning is abhorrible. One can't be racist if one is African-American? As if that is mutually exclusive? The ADL are fools. 207.202.227.125 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think obviously what the adl is saying is that the sovereignty movement cant be inherently racist against black people because black belong to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.238.121 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. CWC 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)