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

To: Texasforever; Poohbah
Congress passed the "Posse Comitatus Act" in 1878 to end military occupation of the Southern states during the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. "Posse Comitatus" is literally the power of a sheriff to summon the assistance of the general populace to help keep the peace or to pursue and arrest felons. However, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed to prohibit local law enforcement from enlisting any branch of the military and local law enforcement functions. The statute embodied a long-standing principle in Anglo-American law that there should be a total separation of the military from civilian law enforcement. During the debates on the original Posse Comitatus Act, Southern Democrats complained bitterly about the oppressive use of the military in a law enforcement role. One Southern Senator said, "whenever you...use the Army to...discharge those duties that belong to civil officers and to the citizens, then you...no longer (have) a government for liberty; it has become a government of force."
116 posted on 06/17/2002 10:22:55 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
You Re trying to teach the willfully ignorant. They just want to off a few wetbacks.
119 posted on 06/17/2002 10:28:41 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
What does the Posse Comitatus Act have to do with using the military to protect our borders from the ongoing invasion of illegals from Mexico?
122 posted on 06/17/2002 10:32:46 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Well, that occupation, after the civil war, would have been against American (albeit somewhat unwilling) citizens. This is a very different thing.

We are talking about the systematic breaking of our laws and the stated objective of 'reclaiming' parts of America. This certainly sounds like the job for a national army.

Why is it our government and some of our citizens feel it is justified to go to another country and take up arms against its citizenry and protect its borders, but not our own.

Now the National Guard, as I understand it, is not totally a national army, it is somehow connected with the state, but haven't they been used within our borders?

I agree with nothing will change until something is done about the corporation who employee these people. But it has to be a total effort on all fronts. It can be done. But just a few well-chosen speeches by our President and his support for it would help. He is doing just the opposite.

Quite, frankly, I think we could do something, but we aren't even willing to make ourselves sacrifice even one of the so called cheap products of these people. So, in essence we deserve what we are getting - but our children and grandchildren do not.

Bottom line, if protecting our own country against invaders should not be the primary 'mission' of the military - then what is?

213 posted on 06/18/2002 6:50:44 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | 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