The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

MLeake · April 23, 2013, 10:50 AM

JimDandy beat me to it, but L&CR has an exemption from being specifically firearms related.

Meanwhile, Eppie, I agree with carguychris that we argue from a strange place, when we dislike the militarization of police but want to use the military as police. Not somewhere we want to go.

However, when not mobilized by the President in time of war, the National Guard falls under the control of its respective states and governors. So, if the border states wanted to use their National Guard units in a border patrol mode, they could. I am not sure what the rules would be with regard to state vs NGB funding for such operations, but suspect the burden would fall primarily or exclusively on the state, so I doubt we will see much of that.

The thing is, Posse Commitatus came about as a direct result of resentment of Union troops occupying the former Confederacy during Reconstruction. Civilians really, really disliked martial law, and while I can understand the rationale behind Reconstruction, it was something that Lincoln had not intended to do. (Read up on it; Johnson and his allies pushed Reconstruction - so John Wilkes Booth really screwed his buddies when he shot the President who would have prevented the following occupation. Irony, don't you love it?)

So, 140 years later, people may think using the military as cops would be a great idea. When we did it before, it did not turn out be be well-regarded, and many historians feel that much of the turmoil of the pre-Civil Rights era was a direct result of the resentment inspired by Reconstruction.

(Note that many of the same historians feel that Hitler could never have done what he did, if the allies hadn't made the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles in a railcar...)

April 23, 2013, 10:50 AM	#7
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	JimDandy beat me to it, but L&CR has an exemption from being specifically firearms related. Meanwhile, Eppie, I agree with carguychris that we argue from a strange place, when we dislike the militarization of police but want to use the military as police. Not somewhere we want to go. However, when not mobilized by the President in time of war, the National Guard falls under the control of its respective states and governors. So, if the border states wanted to use their National Guard units in a border patrol mode, they could. I am not sure what the rules would be with regard to state vs NGB funding for such operations, but suspect the burden would fall primarily or exclusively on the state, so I doubt we will see much of that. The thing is, Posse Commitatus came about as a direct result of resentment of Union troops occupying the former Confederacy during Reconstruction. Civilians really, really disliked martial law, and while I can understand the rationale behind Reconstruction, it was something that Lincoln had not intended to do. (Read up on it; Johnson and his allies pushed Reconstruction - so John Wilkes Booth really screwed his buddies when he shot the President who would have prevented the following occupation. Irony, don't you love it?) So, 140 years later, people may think using the military as cops would be a great idea. When we did it before, it did not turn out be be well-regarded, and many historians feel that much of the turmoil of the pre-Civil Rights era was a direct result of the resentment inspired by Reconstruction. (Note that many of the same historians feel that Hitler could never have done what he did, if the allies hadn't made the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles in a railcar...)