Talk:Posse Comitatus (organization)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

I argue that Posse Comitatus fulfills the first four of these criteria, but not the last three. Thoughts?

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

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,

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:

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)

I removed the following text from another article,

In the U.S. a loose-knit

Jews dominate the Federal government and control its fiat money, and refuse payment of taxes and debts for that reason; they file legal documents proclaiming independence from the United States, or claiming liens against Internal Revenue Service employees, judges, and other perceived enemies. They claim that the county sheriff is the supreme executive authority in the United States. The group has been involved in murder of United States Marshals

and other serious crimes.

William Potter Gale was not the founder of the Posse Comitatus, and his heritage, Jewish, or otherwise, is therefore irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.112.140 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have? There is a well-reviewed book by a major publisher that says he is. If you have another source which says differently then we can add that info too. Please don't delete sourced information from the article.   Will Beback  talk  18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the point of an article is not to provide proof that someone didn't found something, the point is to provide proof they did.

We're not here to play guessing games, and hope we get it right.

In the case of the Posse Comitatus, in actual fact it predates the birth of Gale, but as with organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan it is an organization that has gone through several, and independent incarnations, so I think what you are saying is that you believe he was associated with Beach's Posse Comitatus?

Beach's Posse Comitatus is referred to as the oldest source traced of the modern incarnation of the Posse Comitatus, based up the findings of a 1980's IRS tax investigation, which found he'd been handing out literature, marked Posse Comitatus, in 1969, which is not actually proof of him founding the organization, but we'll leave that for another day, however at that time Gale was still leading the Californian Rangers, a distinctly different organization, and he didn't associate himself with the Posse until he saw it's membership rising, and his own membership falling, ie. after it had been formed, and therefore he didn't found it.

Even had he founded the organization, which he did not, his racial make up would still be irrelevant to the article, so William Potter Gale was not the founder, and his racial make up is irrelevant to the article, sourced or not.

The point of this article isn't to prove anything: it's to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Are there sources which describe the history you've recounted above? If so then we should include them. As for the background of Gale, I don't know how important that is - I suspect there are more important facts about the founding (or not) of the Posse Comitatus that could be included. In the context of anti-semeitism by PC members, the racial background of the purported founder is somewhat relevent, but we should focus on the founding issue first.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it to include unproven things, things should not be added without proof, it's not down to the author to write whatever they want, and then insist someone disproves it, before their error is removed.

In the case of Gale there is no proof he founded the PC, because he didn't, the closest anyone can get is that he associated himself with Beach's Sheriff's Posse Comitatus, after it had been founded.

As for the racial issue, some PC members may be anti-semitic, but it is not a conventional membership organization, there are no membership lists, and there is no proof that all it's members are anti-semitic, in fact there is proof some are not (see the section on the sovereign movement, that grew out of the PC), therefore the racial make up of one reported associate of the organization, is irrelevant, just as I'm sure there are thousands of other organizations, groups, clubs, and political entities that have associates that are anti-semitic, but no wiki entries for when a Jewish associate is found.

A perfect example would be the Republican party, we know some White Supremacists associate with the Republican Party, and that the Republican party has Jewish members, but there is no need to edit the Republican page to make mention of this, just as there is no need to edit this page and make mention of it either.

If a pre-requisite of being a member of the PC was that a person had to be anti-semitic it might be note worthy, but as no such pre-requisite exists it isn't.

Furthermore Gale doesn't even merit his own wiki entry, so he's not even deemed a person of note, or importance.

We're we talking about prominent associates of the PC, such as Gordon Kahl, or Robert Mathews, or even Ron Paul, who is associated with the PC, due to their support for his early campaigns in Texas, for example, if we were it might be worth mentioning, but not for someone unexceptional, who doesn't even merit their own wiki entry.

just adding an entry that says A.N.Other associated himself with an organization, that has some anti-Semites in it, when he is Jewish, is hardly something that adds anything of interest to the article, but is likely to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.112.140 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're familiar with Wikipedia's views on verifiability and truth. See

WP:V, a core policy. We have a reliable source that says Gale is the founder. More views wouold be fine to add, but unless there's a reason to regard the source as unreliable, or the material as irrelevant, it should stay. However it's clear to me that the source is relaible, and that the name of the founder is relevant. If you continue to delete properly sourced material your actions may be regarded as disruptive. Please suggest alternative text that summarizes the source in a more acceptable way.   Will Beback  talk

  19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The smartest thing the devil ever did, was convince people he doesnt exist, and such is the case with the PC. In spite of the wave of complacency regarding this orgainizatiion,the orgainization is neither loosly organized or locally autonomous. It is inn fact, very centrally managed and organized. Possee comitatus often comes desguised as "local citizens groups" with what may seem on the surface, right wing but 'mainstream" objectives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone object to addition of The Order (group) to the "see also" section? While not directly linked to the PC, both are/were Christian Identity groups and Atkins' Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History reported several Order members were recruited directly out of PC. On a separate, but etymologically related question regarding order, could someone combine many of these disparate headers into a more comprehensible ordering of sections/sub-sections? BlueSalix (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Posse Comitatus (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824132529/http://www.possecomitatus.us:80/ to http://www.possecomitatus.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)