Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SauronOfMordor

"The frame of mind that makes for a good soldier generally makes for a bad cop."

The issue here is whether the federal military or the state military makes a better cop. The NG is no better trained to be a police force than the federal forces.

"Something to keep in mind as our police forces become increasingly militarized"

The militarization of local police forces is also a separate issues.

The point I was making is really this. There were a number of complaints on this thread that repealing or amending Posse Comitatus was unconstitutional. There is a difference between a law and an article of the constitution.


58 posted on 09/27/2005 3:12:48 AM PDT by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: DugwayDuke
Repealing Posse Comitatus (PC) is a bad idea, period. Militarizing the civil police force is a bad idea, period. These are both attempts to move Admiralty law jurisdiction onto the land.

The only time there should be a military police (militarized civil police are just another name for military police), is if the USA is invaded by another nation.

The US Constitution deals with this in my opinion; there isn't to be a standing army at all. Now, the government and people have floated away from this by illegal means (to lawfully violate the US Constitution requires an amendment to it). In any case the basic intent is clear: don't go in this direction.

Without research, I'm going to step out on a limb... I'd imagine PC was enacted to limit the growing use of US military for executing the law resulting from the Indian wars. It probably seemed like a natural progression. Using it again foreign agents seems somewhat legal (although ugly and mean), since the Indians nations are separate from the US (that's why they remain under Federal control) almost like a US territory. PC was created to stop the seeming natural progress from US military executing Federal law/rules against foreign nations (Indian nations), to executing civilian law against sovereign citizens and institutions.

Given what I surely see at the intent, PC shouldn't have been required but apparently was. This is just like marriage which the definition of was clear to all until people got evil enough.

Given a long study of lawful law, and our lawful law, please help prevent the perversion of the most basic and fundamental structures of law: the division between civil and Admiralty law and jurisdictions. Every real American knows this is one of the cornerstones of the very foundation of our Republic and must never be played with.

Our good people have (Revolutionary War) and (I'd assume) will fight such breeches of basic law structure with all means necessary.

Please note that any recent militaristic appearances to civil law in the USA are a result of an ongoing war (against a terror network) and as such are part of the constitutional War Powers act. As such they expire after the war is over (lawfully).

59 posted on 09/28/2005 12:24:59 PM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson