Mayanah Schneider Answers Senator Rand Paul


by John Galt
March 6, 2013 23:00 ET


Who is Mayanah Schneider and what are her qualifications to answer the questions posed by Senator Rand Paul asked during his filibuster?

More on that later.

The question of using drones however has been answered and sadly, no President since that sad day has reversed the powers of his predecessor nor engaged in actions to impose restrictions which will reign in the unchallenged power of an Executive Branch acting more like an autocratic dictatorship in some Central American Banana Republic. An oh, by the way, when I use that often used reference I am talking about the George W. Bush administration’s last six years in power, not Obama; Barack’s actions since his election have been far more insidious and evil, as if by a long term design or plan.

Senator Rand Paul asked the question that has yet to be answered:

Can the United States government use American military resources to terminate citizens inside U.S. territory?

The answer is:


Is it Constitutional? No. Yet in case after case, the American public has remained silent while military equipment and personnel are used to either support law enforcement actions in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 direct from the NORTHCOM (Northern Command) website:

The Posse Comitatus Act

Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code (USC), states:

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard in peacetime or to the National Guard in Title 32 or State Active Duty status. The substantive prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) were extended to all the services with the enactment of Title 10 USC, Section 375. As required by Title 10 USC, Section 375 the secretary of defense issued Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, which precludes members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps from direct participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.

The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include: 

  • The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.
  • Assistance in the case of crimes involving nuclear materials (Title 18 USC, Section 831). This statute permits DoD personnel to assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding nuclear materials, when the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies.
  • Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Military support to civilian law enforcement is carried out in strict compliance with the Constitution and U.S. laws and under the direction of the president and secretary of defense.

Thus the change in regulatory structure to the PCA whereas it no longer requires a test of Constitutionality or Congress to engage in a declaration of war, yet there is a more frightening story emerging behind the scenes which allows the U.S. military structure to escape scrutiny for the use of American military might without the use of our own soldiers to engage in the fighting or killing of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. How is this possible? Thanks to the Posse Comitatus Act and a complicit, corrupt, and compromised Legislative Branch the very programs designed to protect American non-combatant citizens can now be used against them.

How many of my readers know that the U.S. State Department has a fleet of 412 aircraft which are used in drug interdiction, reconnaissance operations, tactical support for foreign governments, and other operations? What about the fact that the State Department entered a bid on November 30, 2012 looking for private contractors (aka, mercenaries) for a $10 billion bid to operate this quasi-government air force outside the scope of Constitutional oversight and outside of civilian oversight via the Department of Defense for any military operations that this entity engages in? Wired Magazine’s Spencer Ackerman was shocked at this contract bid and asked some of the same questions in his article of December 4, 2012 titled, U.S. Ready to Offer Mercenaries $10 Billion for a Drug-War Air Force. Yet to date, there has been little questioning nor inquiry by our Representatives in the House and Senate regarding these quasi-military bid contracts created by the State Department which are not subservient to the Posse Comitatus Act nor any other regulatory oversight for military operations inside nor outside of the United States.

Meanwhile in August of 2012 a court in North Dakota declared that the use of U.S. Air Force drones in support of law enforcement, aka, in violation of the original intent of the Posse Comitatus Act as outlined above. In the article from US News on August 2, 2012 titled, Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen, this excerpt says it all as to where some members of the judicial system believe the PCA and use of drones stands as this time:

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that “there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle” and that the drone “appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here,” according to the documents.

In other words if the military was used or engaged in the assistance of local or state law enforcement, such evidence gathered or actions taken are irrelevant to the outcome of the case nor the discovery of evidence to be used against an American citizen within U.S. territory. The outcry from the ACLU, liberals in power, or conservatives would barely raise the needle on a decibel meter by 1 db.

Per the Washington Post article by Ed O’Keefe on February 24, 2010, the United States Department of Homeland Security employed more private contractors than employees paid by the U.S. Government (200,000 versus 188,000 not including the Coast Guard). Why is this alarming? This week we discovered that 2,717 LAV (Light Armored Vehicles/MRAPs) were modified by Navistar for the DHS with no stated purpose for the requisition nor target deployment purpose stated in any filing that this author could find within the FedBizOpps (FBO) website. This major purchase in addition to reported 1.6 billion round ammunition purchase should give every American citizen a pause to wonder just what is planned for America’s future. Per CNET, the Department of Homeland Security now has drones built with technology for domestic surveillance including the ability to identify targets carrying concealed firearms, yet once again, no reaction from the self-professed civil libertarians which assisted in putting the current regime into power.

The only logical disturbing conclusion is that for the United States government to legally bypass the Posse Comitatus Act and uphold it at the same time, the government must create a large well armed private contractor military force (mercenaries) under control of the President but bypassing legislative and DoD (aka civilian) oversight:



The answer to the question Rand Paul asked of the White House during his filibuster has already been answered.

It was answered by a two year old girl.


In the U.S. state of Texas.

In the U.S. city of Waco.


Where American soldiers operating American tanks slaughtered innocent children who were never given their day in court, a hearing before a judge, or as in the case of Mayanah Schneider a chance to learn how to ride a bike.

Sadly, Senator Paul the answer is yes. The American military at the behest of the Commander in Chief, can, has, and will conduct operations without due process against American citizens assassinating them if ordered to do so by the President of the Untied States.

1 Comment on "Mayanah Schneider Answers Senator Rand Paul"

  1. soffitrat | 13/03/2013 at 00:09 |

    reposted on:

    Thanks for the excellent information. It’s a very important issue.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: