|
Posted on 09/03/2005 7:42:08 AM PDT by snippy_about_it
|
|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support. The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer. If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions. We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.
|
 Some view points: The misinterpreted posse comitatus act still endangers national security. Michael Gaynor August 27, 2005 The Posse Comitatus Act (Section 1385 of Title 18 of the United States Code) 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 the 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 Act is an intimidating, irritating and insidious anachonism that has endangered America's security instead of enhancing it, even though no one ever was prosecuted under it. Like the "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement that finally came down AFTER the Twin Towers were destroyed and The Patriot Act became law, because very persuasive liberals apparently had feared America's government and military more than America's enemies, foreign and domestic, and their egregious error had become obvious, its effect extended beyond its express terms. And, like the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, with the passage of time, the Act's actual purpose was disregarded and the scope of its restriction was undesirably expanded by misinterpretation. The Act was NOT intended to prevent military personnel from enforcing the law but instead was passed to allow them to do so only when directed to do so by the President or Congress. The official history of the use of the military services to enforce the laws states: "Some of those who opposed [the Posse Comitatus Act] in the Congress charged that [it] was taking away from the president entirely the power to use troops to repress internal disorders except on request of a state governor or legislature, that President Washington could not even had dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion under its terms. This interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act has often been raised by those protesting against federal troops intervention in the many instances it has occurred since 1878. And indeed the question of what the real meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act was has been the subject of some dispute ever since its passage ... however ... all that it really did was to repeal a doctrine whose only substantial foundation was an opinion by an attorney general...that had never been tested in the courts. The president's power to use both regular and military remained undisturbed by the Posse Comitatus Act, and by the law of 1861 and the Ku Klux Klan Act that had in fact been substantially strengthened during the Civil War and Reconstruction Era. But the posse Comitatus Act did mean that troops could not be used on any authority than that of the President and that he must issue a cease and desist proclamation before he did so. Commanders in the field would no longer have any discretion but must wait for orders from Washington." Colonel John R. Brinkerhoff, US Army Retired and acting associate director for national preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1981 to 1983, in "The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security (February 2002), not only thoroughly reviewed the Act's history, but specified how its impact was expanded far beyond the terms of the Act, as follows: "The Posse Comitatus Act Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947. Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them. Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law enforcement agency with police powers. Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors. May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. It is commonly believed, however, that National Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is followed today. Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors. Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law. Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at its facilities. Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes." On May 27, 1878, Representative J. Proctor Knott of Kentucky introduced an amendment to the Army appropriations bill that eventually became the Posse Comitatus Act. In passing it, Congress voted to restrict the ability of United States marshals and local sheriffs to conscript military personnel into their posses. Not to prevent the use of military personnel to enforce the law if authorized by the President or Congress. The history of the posse comitatus doctrine in America is ironic. The doctrine was invoked first to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and then to protect emancipated slaves from the Ku Klux Klan, with soldier and sailors utilized for each purpose. Then their use was restricted by the Act, because the Southerners did not want soldiers and sailors as part of a posse comitatus and the War Department (now known as the Defense Department) did not want soldiers and sailors taking orders from United States marshalls or local sheriffs, at least without the approval of the President of the United States (also known as the Commander-in-Chief). When parsed, the Act seems foolish as well as foreboding: "Whoever...willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force... to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." And why should the law discriminate between the use of the Army and the Air Force, on one hand, and use of the Navy, the Marines and the Coast Guard, on the other? And that crucial word "willfully" cries out for clarification. Does it mean just mean deliberately or intentionally? Or does it mean deliberately or intentionally AND with a criminal intent (a bad purpose)? Congress should repeal the Act and then set forth in the clearest possible terms any restriction on what America's military forces may do for homeland security purposes and other domestic law enforcement purposes. Congress has enacted some other laws that specify when the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply — for example, Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 831, provides that if nuclear material is involved in an emergency, the Secretary of Defense may provide assistance to the Department of Justice, notwithstanding the Posse Comitatus Act — but a comprehensive approach is needed. Times have changed drastically since the Act became law on June 18, 1878, following Reconstruction, as the nuclear material emergency statutory exception illustrates. The Act was passed because the Army resented having its soldiers used as police officers (a posse) by local law enforcement officials in the post-Reconstruction South. And to supersede a United States Attorney General opinion issued in 1854. Not to prevent the federal government from using military personnel to enforce the law. The posse comitatus doctrine is derived from English common law. Posse comitatus meant the "force of the county"; that is, males over the age of 15 whom the sheriff was permitted to summon or raise to repress a riot or for other purposes. In 1854, Attorney General Caleb Cushing opined that marshals could summon a posse comitatus and that both militia and regulars in organized bodies could be members of such a posse. He thereby facilitated the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Under the Attorney General opinion, although the armed forces might be organized as military bodies under the command of their officers, they could still be pressed into service by United States marshals or local sheriffs as a posse comitatus without the assent of the president. It was convenient, and often essential, for local officials throughout America to use soldiers and sailors as police. At the time, the Army was the only armed force available in the West to assist local officials to enforce the law. During Reconstruction, the Army governed all eleven former Confederate States. It exercised police and judicial functions, oversaw local government, and dealt with domestic violence. Before the Civil War, state militia had dealt with local disorders throughout the United States. During Reconstruction, however, there was no effective militia in the former Confederate States, so the Army by default assumed the responsibility for maintaining order and protecting the emancipated slaves. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 approved this use of the Army and empowered United States marshals to use soldiers and sailors as posse comitatus. By 1869, eight of the eleven former Confederate States had been readmitted to the Union and in them there was a need to obtain assistance from the Army to enforce the law. Attorney General William M. Evarts invoked the posse comitatus doctrine that gave United States marshals and county sheriffs the right to command all necessary assistance from within their districts, including military personnel and civilians, to serve on a posse comitatus to execute legal process, without presidential approval. The War Department objected. It wanted the troops obeying the orders of officers, not marshalls or sheriffs. In 1871, President (and former General) Grant sought to provide a basis for the use of troops other than posse comitatus. In accordance with his policy, the War Department issued general orders saying that the forces of the United States may be committed and shall be employed to assist the civil authorities in making arrests of persons accused of crime, preventing the rescue of arrested persons, and dispersing marauders and armed organizations. The 1876 Presidential election was like the 2000 Presidential election. The Democrat won the popular vote, and the Republican won a majority in the Electoral College. The Democrat, Samuel J. Tilden, disputed the election of the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, and eventually conceded in return for an end to Reconstruction. Reconstruction ended in 1877 with the Hayes inauguration. Federal troops in the South were no longer used to enforce the law, and the Southerners resumed control of their states. Attorney General Charles Devens opined that the United States Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized United States marshals to raise a posse comitatus comprising every person in a district above 15 years of age, "including the military of all denominations, militia, soldiers, marines, all of whom are alike bound to obey the commands of a Sheriff or Marshal." Congress was displeased with United States marshals and sheriffs using Army troops without presidential approval and thereby passed the Act. If the death penalty had the deterrent effect that that the Act and "the wall" have had, murder would be exceedingly rare. In February 2002, Colonel Brinkerhoff wrote: "President Bush and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using military forces for homeland security and for enforcing the laws of the United States. Things have changed a lot since 1878, and the Posse Comitatus Act is not only irrelevant but also downright dangerous to the proper and effective use of military forces for domestic duties." The Colonel was absolutely right. Thing still need to be changed. The Posse Comitatus Act: Can We Maintain American Freedom Without It? By C. T. Rossi July 29, 2002 It seems an odd first step. Why would the head of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, recommend a repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act as a first measure towards fighting terrorism? The Posse Comitatus Act was approved by Congress on June 18, 1878. The measure was in response to the disputed election of 1876 where Rutherford B. Hayes went to bed the loser, but eventually found his way into the Oval Office. The troops who President Grant had stationed at polling places may have had an undue influence over the ballot boxes and stolen a victory for Hayes. Whether the election was actually fraudulent or not, Congress thought it wise to avoid the appearance of impropriety by seeing to it that federal troops would never again be stationed next to the polls - hence the advent of the Posse Comitatus Act. What the act essentially did was render the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement illegal. In a sense, the Posse Comitatus Act was a revolt against the federal centralization which had been conducted under the Lincoln and Grant administrations. States and local communities had the right to police themselves; they weren't to be subjected to federal intimidation (remember, this was before the IRS). Not eager to deny himself the power to intimidate that had been enjoyed by his recent predecessors, Hayes vetoed the act citing the "right of the United States government to use force . . . to protect these elections from violence and fraud." One can easily determine from this that Hayes adhered to a theory of rights that would be quite at home on the modern Supreme Court. Congress overrode the veto. The Posse Comitatus Act was not an absolutist measure; it does contain exceptions for the use of federal troops "in such cases and under such circumstance as such employment of said force may be authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." (This exception clause has been used several times; most recently when the Truman administration, in response to a rail workers' strike, nationalized the railroads under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers.) In short, Posse Comitatus provides a barrier against the pell-mell deployment of troops by the President against the American people. It may be one of the most common-sense-laden pieces of legislation ever to come out of Washington. While Tom Ridge may seem overly eager to tamper with this safeguard, Sen. Joseph Biden's recent comments were even more concerning. In a recent interview, Biden recalled that he was ready to modify the Posse Comitatus after the Oklahoma City bombing. At that time, Biden and former senator, Sam Nunn, "introduced legislation that would moderately alter the posse comitatus." Biden's desire to alter the Act - after a single act of terrorism in Oklahoma City -seemed a radical step and his effort failed. He now laments that under the current provisions "when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot to kill, if in fact [the military] were approaching the weapon [of mass destruction]." But Biden is assuring that alterations which Congress might make to the Posse Comitatus would not mean radical changes to civil liberties: ". . . we're not talking about general police power . . . [only the] idea that you could have your local National Guard, you know, with arrest power like your local policemen." But herein lies the rub. What Biden didn't disclose is that the Posse Comitatus Act does not directly apply to National Guard units because they are under the control of the governors of their respective states - not under the control of the president. Under the type of hypothetical emergency scenarios that Ridge and Biden are fond of constructing, state governors could (and most assuredly would) deploy the National Guard in full cooperation with federal authorities - however, governors would also be free to recall their guardsmen should they feel that military actions were unduly impinging on the rights of state citizens. While Ridge and Biden fabulize about Schwarzenegger-esque domestic shootouts between U.S. military forces and dirty-bomb-toting terrorists in an Amtrak tunnel, the truth is much more sobering. The federal government has yet to prove that it can properly interpret the intelligence that leads them to deploy the anti-terrorist commandos in the right place at the right time. While a modification of Posse Comitatus makes Americans practically no safer, it would open the door to old abuses. Had the Biden initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act passed in 1995, Bill Clinton would have been free to deploy troops to Florida to ensure the validity of the presidential election recount. Need anyone say more? C.T. Rossi comments on contemporary politics and culture for the Free Congress Foundation. sym·po·sium : a social gathering at which there is free interchange of ideas So now let's get on with the discussion. Pull up a chair or grab a spot on the floor around the virtual Foxhole Cabin and let's chat.      |
Yes they have!
We are several hundred miles from the hurricane area here. But, you know, less than 100 miles south of Dallas where a lot of refugees are. We're inundated with messages from the Salvation Army to try to help find people. There are many websites now to help but checking this is tedious! Uncle Lynn is on the radio and I'm on the internet working tonight. Interesting stuff.
I think with the hurricane and now the loss of the Chief Justice we just were not going to get a lot of discussion on this.
Here's my take. It looks like if the law was being interpreted correctly we could have the President or Congress use the military as a police force, also we have the National Guard who are not legally bound by the law.
I can see where it could cause trouble if we tried to overthrow the government but I believe then the Guard would be used anyway, not the military. Or I guess they could sick the Navy and Marines on us. LOL.
To Bad. This is the time when we need to be most vigilant. When everybody is “looking
the other way” Is just when something will be “sneaked in”
Goverment is getting bigger by the day.
The Posse Comitatus Act (If you didn't know what it is)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476916/posts
My comment was meant for humor only, because I don't read a bit of Polish. I was able to infer some of the meaning from the images.
I know you stand with us in these times. The flooding your own country suffered was just as intense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
