Posted on 11/26/2001 6:58:14 PM PST by It'salmosttolate
1878 Military Law Gets New Attention
By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press Writer
SAN ANTONIO (AP) - America's military is largely prohibited from acting as a domestic police force, but with the increased fears of terrorism, some experts say it's time to rethink those restrictions.
``Our way of life has forever changed,'' wrote Sen. John Warner (news - bio - voting record), R-Va., in a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``Should this law now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?''
The law, known as the Posse Comitatus Act, was championed by Southern lawmakers in 1878 who were angry about the widespread use of the Army in post-Civil War law enforcement.
It currently 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. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism.
``In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have,'' he said.
Those roles could be varied, such as helping local law enforcement in the event of a terrorist attack, patrolling the nation's borders or serving as armed sky marshals aboard flights over the United States.
But the issue of expanding the military's domestic reach sharply divides lawyers who have spent years studying Posse Comitatus, Latin for ``power of the county.''
Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it.
The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus.
``There should be a partnership between the military and civilian sectors - the civilian doing the confrontation and the military providing support,'' said Corrigan, now a businessman living in Gilford, N.H. ``I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people.''
Jeffrey Addicott, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army JAG Corps, wrote that the law handcuffs the nation when it comes to responding to terrorist attacks.
``We've got a homeland defense office, but if there's not reforms, the Posse Comitatus Act will cut them off at the knees,'' Addicott, now a law professor at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, said in a recent interview.
``This is a new kind of war,'' Addicott said. ``We have to make a compromise now to prevent these guys from committing an act of terror on a larger scale.''
Army Secretary Thomas White said late last month that the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s review of Posse Comitatus would not likely lead to recommendations that Congress overhaul the act.
``But we are looking at the details of the law to see if revisions are appropriate in the way it's executed or the exceptions that can be taken,'' White said.
Exceptions over the years have seen armed federal troops used for drug interdiction and patrol of the U.S.-Mexico border to enforce immigration laws with mixed results.
In 1997, a Marine corporal on a drug surveillance patrol shot and killed an 18-year-old goat herder in the Texas desert about 200 miles southeast of El Paso. A Marine inquiry determined its personnel were not adequately trained for the mission. Soon afterward, such patrols ended.
Michael Spak, a former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law, says the exceptions made in the name of national security in recent decades have left Posse Comitatus a hollow shell. He says the law should be scrapped entirely.
Any amendment to loosen Posse Comitatus would be strictly pro forma, he says, because as it's now construed, the statute has enough wiggle room for the government to use the military for domestic action as it sees fit.
``It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law,'' he said. ``But is it necessary? No.''
The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 have had little effect on our personal safety or liberty compared to what these knee-jerk congresscritters have in store for us with the new laws they are passing. In order to avoid being politically incorrect they are going to trample on our liberties. This is just another step towards a police state. The way these people are reacting it won't be too long before we begin hearing the phrase "Your papers please" coming from an armed member of our miltary as we try to go about our normal business.
The slippery slope just got a little slicker - we are heading towards a federal police state with national ID cards. This doesn't surprise me coming from Warner. I called his office a while back to let him know that I was opposed to any additional anti-second ammendment laws and that they should focus on the criminals instead. I ended up getting into an argument with one of his aides who was trying to convince me that there was nothing wrong with more restrictions on law-abiding citizens purchasing firearms. I felt like I was back in Massachusetts.
Of course, some will say - but the military is ours now that Bush won - but he won't be in office forever. Just imagine, we put all of these restrictions and laws into place and then Hitlery gets in in 2004. She would gladly sit in the throne that we are now making and use the power that comes with it to the fullest.
If you've bothered to look on TV, the average Arab they have arrested is a pencil necked geeky pantywaste, unarmed and non-confrontative. The terrorist cells in this country are not and do not train to be military units fighting military style campaigns with military tactics. They train to be terrorists who pop up out of nowhere and do sudden, suprise destructive acts and then disappear (or die) without ever combatting anyone, beyond those who are in the way of their committing that act.
As such, there is no justification for sending in military personnel to get them. With 100,000+ armed federales on the govt dole, I THINK there are enough to go after whatever terrorists are in this country. Anyone pushing this garbage has alot more on their mind than getting middle eastern nationals plotting acts of terror within this country.
Our best real hope {political wise} is forget party and vote into both houses a one third membership that understands, respects, and supports the Constitution of the United States. It's time to break the standing parties slave chains and reclaim our government they have taken. In doing as much this would at the least bring gridlock. It would as well bring or force debates on the constitutionality of legislation being considered which both parties refuse to consider except a precious handful. Let the GOP and DEMs destroy themselves instead of this nation.
What you mean, "almost," Kimo Sabe?
Been to a Federal Court House, lately? Restricted parking, locked doors, metal detector, yellow police tape, armed guards everywhere.
I remember being shocked by what I saw in Franco's Spain in 1968. (Franco was a soul-mate of Hitler's.) Well, we have "arrived," people.
And for all those who will rush to tell me, "but these are EXTRAORDINARY TIMES," may I counter: INDEED these ARE extraordinary times: Congress has authorized the termination of the Fourth Amendment minus a declaration of war and the American people didn't even notice!
What you mean, "almost," Kimo Sabe?
I mean that there are not yet tanks breaking up demonstrations in our streets, and the door to door no-knock raids are obstensively done by "police", though closer to paramilitary units, and still there are no national ID cards. But if Chancellor George W. Hindenburg gives up many more of our freedoms, he'll have a place in history, although not, perhaps, the one he envisions for himself. Since he claims to be such a religious man, perhaps he should re-read Daniel 4:17. It's beginning to look like it may apply in his case, too, although after Clinton, even Harding would look like a saint.
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.