Oddly enough, I can’t find a cite on foxnews.com although they’ve been going on about it all day on their channel.
Anyway, they claim Bush has asked the Department of Justice and Department of Defense to review how the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids use of military forces as internal police forces, can be removed or changed to help fight the war on terror.
So… does anyone actually support a ‘revision’ of Posse Comitatus in the face on the (ominous voice) War On Terror?
No. It’s a really really bad idea.
As a hijack, many Latin American states (especially Ecuador) pointed to the Posse Comitatus when the US forced them to use their military for drug eradication purposes and called the US hypocrites (rightfully). Of course, that didn’t change much in the way of actual policy, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t eliminate the possiblity out of hand though I would certainly be worried about any changes they made. In particular I can see even more military involvement in the war on drugs.
Marc
From my understanding, Posse Comitatus was enacted (in part) to prevent the governors of the wild and wooly western states from using free federal troops to police their states, rather then raise (and pay for) their own militias.
It seems like an outdated law. And apart from the sky-is-falling arguments of jack-booted thugs and whatnot, I don’t see a reason why the law shouldn’t be repealed.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
So you believe the concept of keeping the military out of domestic law enforcement outdated?
IMNSHO, allowing the United States to use its military in operations against its own citizens is quite probably the single worst idea I have ever heard in my entire life.
Here’s the story from Yahoo! News:
U.S. Mulls Military’s Domestic Role
This freaks me out, to say the least.
From my understanding, France, Britian, and other such brutal dictatorships allow for the use of their armed forces in domestic situations. (The only example that jumps to mind is the famous SAS raid on the Iranian embassy back in the 80’s)
The military has capabilities that our current LE agencies do not. The military already performs various LE duties in other countries, why not here?
Your understanding is wrong. The Posse Comitatus was created as a result of Reconstruction. During that time, the Army was being used for law enforcement purposes in the South. However, this process of using the Army for traditional police roles, especially controversial ones, began to politicize the armed forces. A positive side effect is that helps to keep corruption down to a minimum in the services, as they are not targets of bribes and extortion and whatnot (see Colombia and Mexico).
However, the act does not apply to the Coast Guard (which is actually Treasury Dept.) nor to the National Guard, as one of the express purposes of the National Guard is to uphold and enforce the laws when normal law enforcement is inadequate.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the military IS allowed to participate in certain law enforcement activities in certain circumstances, due to its possessing some unique equipment and training. For instance, the military is allowed to help plan out an operation and to train law enforcement officers, just as long as it doesn’t take an ‘active’ role such as actually making an arrest or seizing evidence.
Because the Act is a statuatory one, it can be circumvented and Congress has often done so. One example is the ‘War on Drugs,’ in which the military is used for interdiction, because normal law enforcement resources were seen as inadequate. This opened the way up for the use of the military to combat illegal immigration and tariff control. Some say that the military’s role is still mainly logistical support in those areas, but IMHO it is largely an area of semantics.
And in any case, the Civil Disturbance Statutes already permit the President to authorize troops to make arrests, etc.
I believe that the erosion of the PCA is a bad thing, however. IMHO, a firm line needs to be drawn between the military and domestic law enforcement agencies. A distinct line helps keep the military undistracted from their main duties and helps keep them free from bribery and corruption that often accompanies involvement in things like the drug war and things like that. More attention and resources need to be given to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to make them more effective, but I don’t believe that the military should be involved whenever it is possible to avoid it, as it certainly is in this case.
Just how does giving the military more room to operate in this benefit us? What do they bring to the table that no one else does? IMHO, not much.
I’d be interested in hearing exactly what it is that some people(Brutus?) think that we need the military to do domestically that they are not already permitted to do. neurotik has already listed a boatload of situations in which the Military is allowed to act in a domestic capacity. So, what of it? What additional things do we need them to do? If there aren’t any, then what is the need for a change in the law?
Nuclear. He must mean nuclear. :rolleyes:
Nukular. It’s pronounced nukular.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but since the Iranian embassy is, technically, another nation’s country, it doesn’t exactly seem to be a domestic situation at all.
Further, the US is not in the same situation as France and Britian and the like. The US has many non-millitary special operations forces such as SWAT and HRT. And further, many of the European’s forces are not millitary, as well. Germany’s very effective GSG-9 counter-terrorist force is actually a police organization, drawn from the Federal Border Police (IIRC). And France’s GIGN is a police unit too, not a millitary one as you imply.
Wow, you sure are witty.
But back to the OP…
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what sorts of capabilities the armed forces have that LE does not have. (Or has in very limited quanities.)
*Electronic surveillance and tracking.
*Hostage rescue.
*Airborne surveillance.
*Large scale air mobility.
To list but a few. Add to that mix the highly-trained and well-equipped troops that could be brought to bear where needed (The US-Mexico border comes to mind. Obviously the Border Patrol is not competent at its job), and life becomes a bit better for the law-abiding citizens of the US.
Actually - is guarding the border considered a law enforcement thing? I thought the Constitution specifically enumerated a power to call up the military in use for border protection.
Btw, everything you listed except for ‘large scale air mobility’ is well within the scope of law enforcement now.
Electronic surveillance and tracking is covered by the NSA, the FBI and many city police organizations. The military really has not much to add here that couldn’t just as easily be added to other domestic law enforcement.
Hostage rescue is generally taken care of by SWAT. The military is not really needed (except in extreme circumstances).
Airborne surveillance above and beyond what most police organizations can do now? Large-scale air mobility? What the hell would those be useful for?
The Border Patrol would do just fine if they were given adequate funding, which they aren’t. In fact, take what’s being spent on NMD and give it to them. Besides, military is already used on the border. The only thing they did was shoot a 16 year old Mexican tending his herd.
Lastly, the military can ALREADY DO ALL THAT STUFF. It is completely legal for them to perform airborn and electronic surveillance when asked. It is already legal for them to perform hostage rescue. They just can’t act as a police force on their own and go out and arrest people. That’s what Bush is apparently trying to change.
During the Clinton years wasn’t there all sorts of right-wing claptrap that Clinton had signed several executive orders granting untold authority to the military and law enforcement agencies to put down any possible insurrections as a result of Y2K?
They all seem to be urban legends, or wildly blow out of proportion statements. They all died quiet deaths when no evidence was offered to support these outlandish claims.
Yet, today we have a right-wing president actually putting forth proposals for all to see to have the military on the streets, spying on fellow Americans (Operation TIPS), extraordinary police powers under the USA Patriot Act, American citizens held without charge, without trial, without due process in American jails, and not only do we have the right-wing in support of this, but no real hue and cry from the population at large.
Not only that but if one voices any opinion to the contrary, one is often shouted down by fellow Americans.
What the fuck is going on in America? :eek:
Well it will become a very bad situation. Things are moving so fast, and underneath all our noses. 9-11 has opened up a wealth of opportunity for those in power to gain more power.
as soon as 9-11 happened, I asked myself a question. Who has the most to gain from this? There are several theories to this, of course. Now all of these laws are being passed to “protect” us from terrorists, while our true freedoms are being whittled away.
>>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
— Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
The bad thing about using miltary forces for operational police work,* i.e.* as opposed to logistic, communication and intelligence support, is the way in which the military is trained to operate. The military response to a sticky situation is to call in air support to bomb or strafe the area ( remember the C-130 gunship in Afghanistan that recently shot up every village their guns would reach and killed most of a wedding party in one of them?), and/or artillery to level everything in sight before the infantry moves in to finish off any remaining opposition.
Remember how the National Guardsmen reacted at Kent State? I suspect if they had had mortar and machine gun support they would have used that first.
The military is far too blunt an instrument to use it for policing the US. A great deal of lost time and expense would ensue in order to retrain the armed forces for effective domestic policing and that training and the actual police work would both subtract from the time the military had for their main job of defending against foreign enemies.
We have domestic police in every political subdivision of the US, we don’t have any alternative military forces for defense against exterior threats. A preferred solution to any perceived weakness, I suggest, is to better train and equip the domestic police, to strengthen coordination among the various law enforcement agencies, and if the military can help with logistic or other support, fine let them.