Posted on 07/22/2002 6:37:23 AM PDT by robowombat
Biden backs letting soldiers arrest civilians Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 7/22/2002
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, yesterday strongly endorsed giving soldiers the power to arrest American civilians. Interviewed yesterday on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the military from exercising police powers in this country, should be re-examined and "has to be amended."
Such a change will happen soon, he said.
However, Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, said in several appearances on political talk shows yesterday that the Biden proposal should be considered but that he thinks it's "very unlikely" such a change will be made.
The Biden proposal and the Ridge "knockdown" not necessarily a "knockout" may have been coordinated and calculated to measure public reaction. Mr. Ridge grew more emphatic later in the day in his view that military authorities should not have such powers of arrest over civilians. Mr. Biden said that "we're not talking about general police power, changing the idea that you would have your local National Guard with arrest power like your local policeman." But "it's not very realistic" that, under the current law, soldiers with knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, who might be checking out the discovery of a terrorist weapon in the United States, would "not be able to exercise the same power a police officer would in dealing with that situation." "Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be able to shoot to kill, if they were approaching the weapon," nor could they arrest any suspects. Mr. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhardt, President Bush's choice to lead the military's new Northern Command, told the New York Times that he favors changes in existing law to give increased domestic powers to the military to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people," said Gen. Eberhardt, whose command's primary goal is domestic security, in a dispatch published yesterday in the newspaper.
The New York Times reported that the general's opinion is shared by other senior military officials and represents a "shift in thinking" at the Pentagon, which historically has resisted involvement in domestic law enforcement.
The White House has instructed lawyers at the departments of Defense and Justice to analyze federal laws on the books that restrict the military's role in law enforcement on U.S. shores, the paper reported. Congress assigned to federal troops a large role in law enforcement in the 11 Confederate states after the Civil War, tasks such as guarding election polling places, arresting members of the Ku Klux Klan, and halting the production of illegal moonshine and the fomenting of labor strife. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted in 1878 to eliminate military enforcement of the civil law, effectively ending Reconstruction.
Mr. Biden recalled that in 1995 he and Sen. Sam Nunn, Georgia Democrat, after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, introduced legislation that would have "moderately altered" the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling the military to intervene in incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Biden said some lawmakers are likely to be more receptive to repealing the 1878 act now than they were before September 11.
On Fox, Mr. Ridge called Gen. Eberhardt's remarks about the need for such a review "very appropriate." "We need to be talking about military assets in anticipation of a crisis event. And, clearly, if you're talking abut using the military, then you should have a discussion about Posse Comitatus. It's not out of the question [that there could someday be a situation] when, in support of civilian authorities, we would give the National Guard or troops arrest ability" in a crisis situation where there may be "severe consequences to a community or region."
However, he said such a scenario is "very unlikely."
In a separate interview on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," Mr. Ridge was even more emphatic that the discussion is an academic one. "There's been absolutely no discussion with regard to giving military authorities the ability to arrest in their support of civilian authorities." Asked whether he believes the military should have the power to arrest U.S. citizens, he replied: "No."
Mr. Ridge said he could imagine, hypothetically, the secretaries of defense and homeland security broaching the possibility of changing the 1878 act at some future meeting. "That does not mean that it will ever be used or the discussion will conclude that it even should be used," he said. "I think that generally goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest."
On "Late Edition," Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Governmental Affairs Committee, said he believes military troops could be useful for tasks such as "surveillance along the borders thousands of miles that are very difficult for law enforcement to deal with." "It would be against our traditional Posse Comitatus principles. But it might be an idea whose time has come."
But Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Posse Comitatus Act is a "solid law" that "has served us well." He said: "We should not assume that we're going to have to change it. On the other hand, I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful than they've been up to now" in providing training, equipment and other assistance in disaster situations. But the military should not be arresting people.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
I agree. We need to be very vocal about not changing this law!
In Texas we have Texas Rangers, Highway Patrol, County Sheriffs, Constables, City Police, School Dist. Police..ack!
Do we we really need the military as well? If so, then can we get rid of some of these other agencies?
They are already allowed to fight against foreign soldiers. Heck, that's their job.
If Liberals would agree, as you state, that foriegn nationals plotting to commit acts of terror are "soldiers", and therefore legitimate targets for our military, I would be comfortable with the implication of your statement. Unfortunately, Liberals talk of due process for these foriegn nationals and don't categorize them as soldiers.
For instance, if a national gaurdsman had shot the Arab terrorist at LAX two weeks ago rather than El Al security, there would be a furor in the press about the unlawful nature of the militaries action. One wonders whether the gaurdsman would have been charged.
This is dangerous ground. More Feds with more guns and more laws doesn't amuse me.
It appears to me that this latest news is clearly indicating where the Republic is headed.
It is interesting to note that more of the US Constitution has been destroyed piece by piece under the Bush administration in the first two years than was accomplished by Clinton in his entire first term.
Ted Kennedy equated the INS's stricter controls on Arab visas to our illegal determent of Japanese Americans during WWII... w/ this type of hyperbole and a press willing to consume and disseminate it what do we do?
Facts are facts. What do I care whether "Liberals" (I'm assuming you mean leftists?) "agree" with facts? I'm talking about facts. A foreign national poised to commit large scale acts of violence against the citizens of this country is, by definition, making war against us. It is the job of the military to fight back against such people.
Unfortunately, Liberals talk of due process for these foriegn nationals and don't categorize them as soldiers.
Those leftists are simply wrong. What else is new?
For instance, if a national gaurdsman had shot the Arab terrorist at LAX two weeks ago rather than El Al security, there would be a furor in the press about the unlawful nature of the militaries action.
Perhaps. So what?
One wonders whether the gaurdsman would have been charged.
I seriously doubt it.
We have. It's just a highly irregular army populated largely by brainwashed idiots who have trouble even lighting their own shoes on fire. Nevertheless, we have been invaded all the same.
B-b-b-but this can't be true! The Movies tell me so.</sarcasm>
If another terrorist shoe drops then all bets are off. We will in all likelyhood revert back to a WWII style suspension of normality at a minimum.
BTW, being a non-citizen does not equate to illegal alien. I personaly know a "southern" female serving in the Dakotas and her husband is with her. Fine people of great moral character and definatly not illegal.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
They're sound asleep, and I don't care to save their a$$. Shrug, baby, shrug.
The fedgov will do this to all of us rather than commit the PC horror of focusing on muslim immigrants.
And many of the freshly minted foreign born soldiers will barely speak English, and have no awareness of the Bill of Rights.
The White House has instructed lawyers at the departments of Defense and Justice to analyze federal laws on the books that restrict the military's role in law enforcement on U.S. shores, the paper reported.
Congress assigned to federal troops a large role in law enforcement in the 11 Confederate states after the Civil War, tasks such as guarding election polling places, arresting members of the Ku Klux Klan, and halting the production of illegal moonshine and the fomenting of labor strife.
The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted in 1878 to eliminate military enforcement of the civil law, effectively ending Reconstruction
Federal troops werent used to enforce American civil law in any of the United States after the Civil war.
Get the facts right, please. American Federal troops were used to enforce foreign laws on a conquered nation.
If Senator Biden gets his way, the military will have a power that they have never enjoyed before; the power of enforcing civilian laws inside the borders of the United States.
Wrong, they have already done that.
As far as we know they still do.
To: robowombat
I heard Biden on Sunday morning on Fox discussing this new power. He said it would be necessary for the military to foil any plot using a weapon of mass destruction. Under current law, for instance, if an Arab terrorist were attempting to detonate a suitcase bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, and the military were the first to arrive, they would not be authorized to either detain or shoot at the terrorist because the military lacks the proper police powers under such circumstances.
I say do whatever it takes to track and kill Arab terrorists.
# 3 by 1bigdictator
Why stop at Arab terrorists, 1bigdictator?
We have domestic terrorists, people who actually believe that they have the right to believe as they please, like that madman Koresh, or that criminal Randy Weaver.
Let's not forget those whacko organizations who call themselves "Patriots," and "Militias," and people who support the 2nd Amendment, and people who have the audacity to quote relevent passages of the Constitution to government officials.
Senator Biden just wants the legal power to use the military against citizens, 1bigdictator. In practice, they dont actually wait for Congressional permission. The one who decides whether to use the military or not is our President, who usurps powers delegated to Congress, in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
The use of military personnel in civilian matters is illegal under the Constitution. Ive been saying so for years.
Senator Bidens proposal shows that our Congressmen knew that the use of the military was un-Constitutional, as well.
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.