Bush urges DoD and DoJ to review Posse Comitatus...

[Brutus]

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.

Not true, in the tactical sense. The NSA operates satellites and listening stations. Useful for gathering information at times (can they operate domestically? I believe that they are under the same restrictions as the CIA), they are useless when it comes to tactical situations. (We know J.Schmoe is in L.A., but exactly where in L.A.?).

The FBI is not the FBI you may see on the X-Files. They are not particularly advanced when it comes to technology. Note that the former FBI director did not have a PC in his office, which shows the low priority on technology at the time. They may change, or it may not. If it does, how long would it take to bring the FBI up to speed?

The various branches of the military have ESM capabilities up the wazoo. An excellent read regarding what can be accomplished by a small group of Army Intelligence personnel (and their gee-whiz gear) would be Killing Pablo, by Mark Bowden.

Hostage rescue is generally taken care of by SWAT. The military is not really needed (except in extreme circumstances).

SWAT teams are very skilled, within a certain set of situations. SEALs, FAST Teams, Delta, etc, are more skilled in a wider set of situations. We pay for them, why not have them help protect us and enforce our laws?

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 vast majority of PD’s do not have integral air units. They may or may not borrow them from the county or state level, when and if available.

Additionally, I do not know of any PD’s that maintain a UAV force.

What would air mobility be used for? Rapid movement of large units, nice when dealing with your ‘Waco’ situations. It took how many days to get that cordon up?

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.

Absolutely not. Money is not the answer; Professionalism and attitude are.

The border should be put under military control until a viable plan for protecting it is put forth. Thousands upon thousands of illegals swarm across, when we have troops guarding other nations borders? What the hell is the logic in that?

They just can’t act as a police force on their own and go out and arrest people.

I am guessing that you (and others) think that this is a good thing. Why? What do you think will happen? Repeal of the PCA would allow the military to help enforce the laws, not to make the laws!

Like I have said before, other then the typical ‘The sky is falling!’ arguments, can you give me a few good reasons the PCA shouldn’t be repealed?

See Duckster if you want to know how to make a good (if there is such a thing) sky-is-falling argument.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Not true, in the tactical sense. The NSA operates satellites and listening stations. Useful for gathering information at times (can they operate domestically? I believe that they are under the same restrictions as the CIA), they are useless when it comes to tactical situations. (We know J.Schmoe is in L.A., but exactly where in L.A.?).

The FBI is not the FBI you may see on the X-Files. They are not particularly advanced when it comes to technology. Note that the former FBI director did not have a PC in his office, which shows the low priority on technology at the time. They may change, or it may not. If it does, how long would it take to bring the FBI up to speed?

The various branches of the military have ESM capabilities up the wazoo. An excellent read regarding what can be accomplished by a small group of Army Intelligence personnel (and their gee-whiz gear) would be Killing Pablo, by Mark Bowden.**

The NSA doesn’t have any domestic opperation restriction like the CIA, if I’m remembering right. And between them and the FBI, they do have some very potent electronic surveilance knowledge and ability. The millitary relies on them much of the time (And the CIA).

And the millitary is already able to support law enforcement units with surveilance, advising, and other such support. So why change it?

SWAT teams are very skilled, within a certain set of situations. SEALs, FAST Teams, Delta, etc, are more skilled in a wider set of situations. We pay for them, why not have them help protect us and enforce our laws?

SWAT, HRT, and other non-millitary sources are already quite capable of performing law enforcement activities. Situations that would require millitary forces are already under their ‘domain’, so nothing needs to be changed there. We don’t need SEALs or Delta for normal LE activities, nor for most ‘larger’ activities like hostage rescue.

And actually, LE forces can be pretty widely specialized. I remember some mention of Miami SWAT undergoing training in aquatic insertions for dealing with actions in/on the water.

**The vast majority of PD’s do not have integral air units. They may or may not borrow them from the county or state level, when and if available. **

When they need an air unit, they can get it. If they’re chasing a speeding car, the millitary shouldn’t be diverting its air units to track it (Amusing as it is, thinking of an Apache going after some speeding jackass…). And if it’s something big, like a terrorist hostage-taking or another waco, they’ll get air support from other cities or even states as soon as they ask for it. And again, the millitary can already do this, so why change it?

Additionally, I do not know of any PD’s that maintain a UAV force.

Fair enough. And I can think of none that need it, either. And, yet again, the millitary can already give UAV surveilance support when needed, so… etc, etc…

What would air mobility be used for? Rapid movement of large units, nice when dealing with your ‘Waco’ situations. It took how many days to get that cordon up?

Um… Wasn’t it up the first day? Again, can already do this, don’t need to change it.

**I am guessing that you (and others) think that this is a good thing. Why? What do you think will happen? Repeal of the PCA would allow the military to help enforce the laws, not to make the laws! **

Which we don’t need. LE can already enforce the laws, and can call recieve millitary aid in EVERY situation you’ve already listed. So why do we need the millitary acting as police? The National Guard can already give direct support to the police when normal police aren’t enough for a situation, so why do we need the army and the like getting involved, too?

Like I have said before, other then the typical ‘The sky is falling!’ arguments, can you give me a few good reasons the PCA shouldn’t be repealed?

Sure. It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it. Can you give any reason it should be repealed? They can already do everything listed here, they just can not opperate as normal police. Why would it be to our advantage to do so?

[Neurotik]

A good reason not to? Who’s jurisdiction are they under? Do they cooperate or take over operations? Are they under command of the local police? The feds? Or do they do their own detective work? How much information do they share with local PDs and the FBI? Do they share at all?

In short, it makes a complicated mess out of the whole thing to do stuff except specific operations laid out by the police. How’s that for a reason? Can you give a reason to actually change it, other than ‘What harm can it do?’

Lastly, regarding the Border Patrol…are you involved in the BP? Do you have many acquaintances involved in it? Or are you just spewing right-wing BS about something you actually have no knowledge of? The BP does a fantastic job given the massive area they have to cover and the meager resources they are given to do it. Don’t give me this crap about how money isn’t the answer and professionalism is. Tell you what, next time the DoD comes around asking for a budget increase after squandering what they have been given, I want to hear Reps tell them that, since that’s what they tell every other organization who needs money (schools, BP, INS, etc.).

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
Nukular. It’s pronounced nukular.

Just cuz GWB sez it that way don’t make it so.

[Monty]

Isn’t the National Guard already under the state governors? And isn’t law enforcement a function of the state government?

[Monty]

Addendum: Of course I’m referring to state law enforcement.

[barton]

I did a column on this back on Wednesday, the day after the report came out.

http://www.weeklylowdown.com/071702.shtml

Quick summary: PCA good, military everywhere, bad.

[Kyomara]

From the Yahoo! article:

President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil…known as the “Posse Comitatus Act.”

Ridge said Sunday that it “goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest,” and called the prospect “very unlikely.”

But he said the government is wise to examine the law.

“We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event,” Ridge said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And clearly, if you’re talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus.”

Bush has not called for a repeal of the law: he has merely called for a review. They are looking for new ways that the military might be used to fight terror domestically, and it would be foolish of them to do that without considering the implications of this law. That does not (necessarily) mean that they are looking for ways to “beat” it.

My impression from reading this article was that the administration knows people will get paranoid about this issue (refer to a few of the earlier posts in this thread for validation of that concern), and felt it would be a good idea to be the first to get it out in the open before others tried to “expose” them for keeping it a secret.

Until they start talking about actually repealing the law, I’m not too concerned.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
** What would air mobility be used for? Rapid movement of large units, nice when dealing with your ‘Waco’ situations. It took how many days to get that cordon up?
**

If you think overwhelming, air mobile military force is the proper response to ‘Waco’ situations, then it’s pretty clear that it sets the tone for the rest of your argument.

But it’s a valid opinion to hold, I guess - and you may even get your wish in a decade or two.

[toadspittle]

*Originally posted by Duckster *
**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.**

The evidence is real enough. The executive orders dealing with emergency powers go back 50 years, though. Clinton signed a few. There are a number of links on Gary North’s old Y2K site.

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/results_.cfm/Martial_Law