Posse comitatus coming to an end?

[Sodbuster]

respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic
catastrophe

The original link has expired, so I'm not sure what the article addressed. I'm guessing it didn't refer to an Army War College report stating that military troops may be needed to control unrest due to the present economic crisis. Martial Law? Interesting times.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...5/daily34.html

[alloy]

Arizona is kinda odd what with the Governor's promise to save ammo from harm in case of disaster, but they got the new Bushmasters courtesy of Mr Spade, so they are on the path to civic fung shui.

Which times were not interesting, Sodbuster?

[Sodbuster]

Perhaps my comment is an affirmation of your implication? A subset of the total period of interesting times. I heard about Mr. Spade providing some firearms for LE, didn't read an article about it or know who received them.

[alloy]

Perhaps. A link here... http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?ne...3&silentchk=1&

edit: my bad about the other article i posted for a second, i misread the rifle quantity.

[Eghad]

The original link was expired. So I did not get a chance to read it. I foresee the major military role being to enhance surveillance capabilities. Our current capabilities in Iraq have proven to the enemy we can operate 24/7 and that night time is owned by us. Or to quote a crewmember of a Specter gunship.. "you can run but you just die tired. Same for the border and urban areas.

[rwilson452]

I suspect that crewmember stole that line from Carlos Hathcock.

The original link was expired. So I did not get a chance to read it. I foresee the major military role being to enhance surveillance capabilities. Our current capabilities in Iraq have proven to the enemy we can operate 24/7 and that night time is owned by us. Or to quote a crewmember of a Specter gunship.. "you can run but you just die tired. Same for the border and urban areas.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Can you name 10 times in history where a government began using its military against its own citizens, and that military intervention was to the benefit of the citizens?

Not against them but the National Guard has helped out many a community devastated by natural disaster. Also, the military has been used successfully to monitor and track/apprehend drug runners and illegal immigrants.

Using the military for internal operations like the Corps of Engineers was used in the 1930s can be beneficial in certain extreme times. Hey, it was the military research folks (ARPA) that invented the Internet (with apologies to Al Gore)

The problem with using the military in many other countries is 1) The military isn't subordinate to civilian authority and/or 2) the civilian authority is not democratically elected and accountable to it's people. We don't have that problem.

[divemedic]

Not against them but the National Guard has helped out many a community devastated by natural disaster.

Not the same as using military force. Using them purely as a manpower pool to fill sandbags is different from using Federal troops as law enforcement.

Also, the military has been used successfully to monitor and track/apprehend drug runners and illegal immigrants.

The war on drugs is more of an infringement than a benefit.

Using the military for internal operations like the Corps of Engineers was used in the 1930s can be beneficial in certain extreme times. Hey, it was the military research folks (ARPA) that invented the Internet (with apologies to Al Gore)

Corps of engineers is more like a Federal Construction program than military. The Corps of engineers is the military paying civilians to operate dredgers and build bridges and dikes. Not the same as military force being used against citizens.

The problem with using the military in many other countries is 1) The military isn't subordinate to civilian authority and/or 2) the civilian authority is not democratically elected and accountable to it's people. We don't have that problem.

That is my point. Once you begin using the military to control the population and to enforce law, the military is less subordinate to civilian control. As far as "democratically elected," I believe that Cuba has elections, as did Iraq.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The war on drugs is more of an infringement than a benefit.

Not on topic but just for the record, I don't think the war on drugs is an infringement of any of our rights.

Once you begin using the military to control the population and to enforce law, the military is less subordinate to civilian control.

Not sure I see that at all. How you use the military does not impact who they answer to. With the kind of asymetrical terrorist threat we face today local LEOs aren't equipped to fight that and we might need our military to deal with parts of that threat. Posse Comitatus was passed because of Reconstruction and the military governments in place in the south after the civil war. Not an issue now.

Bottomline, sometimes military intervention is needed and beneficial and that includes law enforcement. Nevetheless, our military answers to our elected leaders and using them for certain aspects of LE will not change that.

As far as "democratically elected," I believe that Cuba has elections, as did Iraq.

Did you mean Iran? Cuba's elections are shams but I would argue that those in the Iraqi parliament were elected by the majority of the population in a legitimate election per their people's will.

[alloy]

Katrina showed all i need to know about leaving local government to deal with large emergencies. In the modern times(as in all times most likely) the gov't is damned if they do, damned if they dont.
Nationwide Martial Law to enforce an Obama AWB? Can't see it, but i hope the gov't knows something about logistics and probabilities of emergencies and terrorism that i dont know. Seems they might, we havent had an attack lately. A few million folks needing drinking water or food or medical...would require something we obviously dont seem ready for. Maybe they have learned a few things running Iraq for a few years.

[divemedic]

Seems they might, we havent had an attack lately.

I am not buying that. The first WTC attack was February 26,1993. There was not another incident of international terrorism on US soil until September 11, 2001, more than 8 1/2 years later.

The fact that we have gone 7 years 4 months without another proves exactly nothing about the effectiveness of the Government in preventing attacks.

[alloy]

Divemedic, fine. I shouldnt have answered this thread. If you want to hyperventilate into a paper bag and worry about the inevitability of REX84 and Cable Splicer during Obamas transition into the White House, fine.

Even as cynical as i am, which is pretty cynical...im not gonna argue semantics of each sentence because you choose to think Bush suspended a law so that Obama could take away my sporter.

Good day, i have more positive thoughts to think this New Years Day than martial law being used to suppress Americans.

[divemedic]

My, my aren't we a bit sensitive.

You said that the fact that we have not had an attack in 8 years prove that the Govt is keeping us safe from the mean old terrorists. All I am saying is that a negative can't be used to prove a positive.

Kind of like saying that no one has broken into my house and my door is unlocked proves that closing the door is enough to deter a burglar.


BTW- I don't think anyone did it so Obama could do anything. What I am saying is that it is inthe nature of governments to use the tools which they have been given, and that they are usually used in unintended and over reaching ways. I will have a good time laughing at those who lauded the powers handed the Presidency during the last term, when they are inevitably misused in the next.

[Al Norris]

Do we get back on topic, or do we close this thread?

Don't answer this post, while it is sarcastic in nature, it is a valid directive.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Al,

You are right this is getting off topic.

I say that using the military for certain parts of law enforcement is not a worry to me and would I think, be beneficial in some instances. I do not fear the military in the US as long as they answer to elected civilian authority.

The terrorist threat we now face today might well exceed the capabilites of local LE (even some national LE) and so the military might be well suited to help meet that threat.

A pertinent aside, as a college intern with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement many years ago I studied and wrote several briefs detailing how FDLE might use the military to help with fighting the drug trafficking that was getting real bad. Some years later, I was told my briefs were used to ask for military radar aircraft to be used while training to track incoming flying drug dealers. Win win for all and Reagan signed an EO to make it happen.

[44 AMP]

Against striking miners on more than one occassion, and most certainly be used again when the poeple in power deem it to be in the nations best interrests. The law contains more than enough exceptions so that any action may be legally justified, including house to house search by troops, if the authorities are willing to sign the paperwork declaring the needed level of "emergancy".

Any and all legal challenges will come well after the fact, and the way our system works, the only repercussions likely to those giving the orders is a loss of political prestige. And that is only going happen possibly years after the troops are sent in.

As far as the concept that we should not need a standing army, as per the Founding Fathers beliefs, a couple hundred years ago, we could have gotten away with it. But even then, our Founders recognised the need for a standing Navy. Ships of war were the most technological systems in use in the era. The need for having trained men to work them at need was well understood.

Gone are the days when a militia was able to be called up, and being as well equipped as the soldier, and owning a kowledge of basic drill and maneuver was able to priovide a viable fighting force. Things are waaay to technical for that today. And anything less advanced is seen as deliberately jeopardizing the lives of our troops, our sons and daughters.

Since a standing army must exist, they do exist, and they will be used. How, where, and why are decisions well above the pay grade of most of us. All we get to do is voice our opinions to our elected representatives, and hope the act in accordance with both our wishes and our best interests.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Any and all legal challenges will come well after the fact, and the way our system works, the only repercussions likely to those giving the orders is a loss of political prestige. And that is only going happen possibly years after the troops are sent in.

After Katrina, Tennessee passed a law to make it illegal to confiscate firearms during a declared emergency. GOV Bredesen didn't like it but didn't dare veto it. Pretty quick response to a governmental intrusion. Many other states passed similiar laws. That is a little more than political prestige. I think politicians who confiscate firearms might lose more than prestige maybe their jobs as well.

All we get to do is voice our opinions to our elected representatives, and hope the act in accordance with both our wishes and our best interests.

NO! We get to vote and throw out those who oppress us. Listen to Guntalk Radio and Clark Apotion who with his Utah Gun group that stopped a state judge appointment. We can make a difference if we stay vigilent and involved. The NRA helped us defeat an anti-gun ordinance in our county and we stuffed it good. Democracy works, passivity does not.

[sewerman]

as with every consitutional law that provides the populace rights from oppression & tranny. this one's being adulterated and driven out of town.

let the goose stepping begin:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm



sewerman

[Erik]

"Posse comitatus coming to an end?"

No. The argument is that military involvement in disaster relief efforts equates to granting the military law enforcement powers. I submit that "disaster relief" and "law enforcement" are not synonymous.

[209]

I believe the concept is to have a unit on-hand and ready to deploy for disasters and to help in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Having briefly served in an NBC Decon type unit, I know they have a heck of a lot of equipment sitting around and it’d be silly not to use them in an NBC event. Likewise, a good combat engineer unit would be a nice thing to field quickly for certain types of problems. If they assign a light infantry brigade to the task, I'll be concerned.

I’m not initially worried by the idea. I am more concerned about the Obama proposal for a National Security Force. I think that could turn into something bad faster than having an Army unit dedicated to civil disaster/terrorist response.

Of course years from now, I may find myself facing something and saying, “How did that happen?” I'll be cursing my crystal ball. Sometimes a smart idea experiences a "creep" in design and becomes rather undesirable. And it mutates slowly.

[BlueTrain]

One of the times the military (not the National Guard) was used was to run the bonus marchers out of town. Ironically, they were WWI veterans and it happened in Washington, D.C. They even used tanks. The commander was MacArthur. This was before my time but one who was living here at the time said that MacArthur overstepped his authority, meaning he went farther than his orders said to, which in this case actually meant crossing the Anacostia River. Truman remembered that when MacArthur wanted to do the same thing in Korea.

The D.C. National Guard was used to help restore order in 1968, too, but I don't know if you want to count that or not.

Regarding the militia, colonial American style, and also the Swiss military system, you should understand that neither was voluntary and were not necessarily popular. In the case of the Swiss, it did not follow that the Swiss generally had a lot of confidence in their own ability to resist the Germans but apparently the leadership of the country at the time (1940) managed to rally the Swiss enough to adopt an active defensive posture. Naturally all this is arguable. The militia was certainly very active on the early American frontier, chiefly against the Indians but also the French. However, there were regular troops, if you can call them that, manning frontier forts all up and down the Alleghenies, chiefly. This period of history was actually quite short, roughly from 1750 to around 1800 (fifty years, not really so short a period) after which the threat to the states had pretty much been eliminated east of the Mississippi, except in the south. The regular troops I mention would have been state troops and existed, as far as I know, only in very limited numbers but the total population was still small.

I don't recall much mention of a militia in the west (beyond the Mississippi) except perhaps for Texas, which of course also had a regularly organized army, even if it was not uniformed. Federal troops carried most of the burden of surpressing the Indians in the west.

In countries like Germany under Hitler and others, it was still the police who carried out anything resembling policing and other bodies apart from the regular armed forces, namely the SS, who mainly did the dirty work of the state. While both Germany and the USSR may have been police states, they were not really military dictatorships. Dictatorships to be sure but generals didn't run the country.

[Erik]

Speaking of DC, I heard today that 12, 500 troops were on tap for inaugural events. I don't have further details.

[Wuchak]

...Cuba's elections are shams but I would argue that those in the Iraqi parliament were elected by the majority of the population in a legitimate election per their people's will.

So was the new Southern government headed by Jefferson Davis. We all know how that turned out. Lincoln, who used the US Military to invade and conquer the sovereign States of the South, should be universally despised as a tyrant and yet instead is heralded as one of the greatest Presidents in our history. That is in no small part due to the North's clever repackaging of him as the great liberator of the slaves and of the North rewriting history so people believe that slavery was a key reason for the war when nothing could be further than the truth.

[Chui]

Originally posted by divemedic: "Of course it is a statutory creation, but that certainly does not mean that it will not be circumvented. Which, by the way, is the exact thing the anti-federalists were worried about, and the reason why this country was not meant to have a standing army."

Amen, brother. Too few in this nation are knowledgable enough to know this, however

[Chuckusaret]

The president can direct the states to mobilize their National Guards to control riots, civil unrest etc. If there is an AWB approved I believe the Guard would be mobilized to enforce the ban. If this would be the case I would hope state governors would use "Home Rule" as the way to refuse to carry out the presidents order to use the troops to confiscate the weapons. Based on the riots/demonstrations in England I don't believe Obamanation has the gonads to start civil unrest early on in his term. If he should, I would recommend that he surround himself with the 20,000 troops on a daily basis. I do believe there is someone out there that will take exception to his attempt to ban weapons and take whatever action is necessary to have him cancel the law.