Domestic Militarization: A Disaster in the Making

Cato Institute ^ | September 25, 2005 | Gene Healy

[tjbravo]

In his televised address on September 15, President Bush declared that "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces--the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." Senator John Warner (R-Va.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, goes further. In the wake of Katrina, he's suggested weakening Posse Comitatus, the longstanding federal law that restricts the government's ability to use the U.S. military as a police force. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita called Posse Comitatus a "very archaic" law that hampers the president's ability to respond to a crisis.

[mzbzybee]

I am with you..NO! NO! AND NO!!!!

[UCANSEE2]

If Bush thinks he can use this lack of competence to impose the Federal Government on Individual States he is not as smart as the liberals think he is stupid!

Just because he offers to do something, is no proof it can or will be done.

Look at the behavior by the local government involved in this discussion.

Look at what he is offering.

He's spanking the brats.

[UCANSEE2]

You see it too.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

As the civilian authorities(Federal, State and Local) increasingly prove their incompetency there will come a time in the future when some military leader will say "Who needs you!"

[WVNan]

This is true, but the move to Federalize was predictable after the attacks the Administration and the President had to endure after Katrina. People should be very careful what they ask for.

[King Prout]

yoo-hoo

[ZOOKER]

I resist the idea of Federal troops blowing into town and taking over without the consent of local authorities.

That said, how many mouths does the Federal Gov't feed who ARE NOT in the armed forces? Can looting be considered a federal crime, such that the FBI can "investigate"?

Can mitigating a flood fall into the purview of the Bureau of Land Management?

Can an evacuated city be considered a "Wilderness Area", subject to Federal Parks authority?

Can IRS agents fill sandbags?

[Sam Cree]

"This whole thing was because of the failure of a mayor (Nagin) and a governor (Blanco) to perform their duties."

I agree, but the thing that gets me is that hurricane scientists have been warning for years, well over 20 years, that if Americans continued to build and move into vulnerable coastal areas, disaster was inevitable.

Well, Americans by the millions moved into those areas and we had a disaster. Yet not once have I heard it mentioned that everyone knew the danger, that we had been warned about it for so long.

[WriteOn]

i agree.

[norton]

Terrific,
Now I might have to put lincoln and Bush 2 in the same bucket I have reserved for presidents who completely redefine, to their detriment, both the constitution and the states that signed up to it.

Bucket used to hold only one candidate.

(C'mon George, we already have mexico and that little border thing to disagree over, don't make it SO much worse.)

[norton]

On a positive note:
I didn't vote for lincoln.

[norton]

On a positive note:
I didn't vote for lincoln.

[cdrw]

yeah I could have sworn I read about that somewhere.

[decimon]

Bush: It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces--the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.

Healy: The Posse Comitatus Act is no barrier to federal troops providing logistical support during natural disasters.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita called Posse Comitatus a "very archaic" law that hampers the president's ability to respond to a crisis.

With nothing more to go on, isn't the problem with Di Rita's comment and not Bush's?

[SauronOfMordor]

Just as it was constitutional for Congress to pass this law in the late 1800s, it is just as constitutional for them to amend or rescind this act.

Congress passed the law for good and prudent reason, seeing the abuses caused by having the military acting as law enforcement during the Reconstruction period. The American Revolution was partly caused by British troops trying to act in a law enforcement capacity

The frame of mind that makes for a good soldier generally makes for a bad cop. Something to keep in mind as our police forces become increasingly militarized

[Apogee]

I am not sure what a lot of the fuss is about.
Day one: denial, I spoke with people from the NOLA area who went with the fatalist yet optimistic view that everyone was blowing it out of proportion.
Day two: it was bad, so bad, the folks there could not get a good fix on the situation - as is common with events which destroy the infrastructure.
Day three: A bit of a spat over the meaning of federalism - with national resources in the area or en route.
Day four: the troops begin streaming in.

All in all, that is pretty fast work for the size of the problem.
Now - perhaps a plan could have been in place to drop comm equipment in for those who needed it on days two and three, and perhaps some future national planning needs to take that into account, but the call was still on the local authorities to make , which they did not seem to do in a proper fashion, other than to scream about it all. And I get the idea that had the Naval assets who were on alert, or the National Guard, gone in right away, Mr. There-is-only-one-mayor-of-New-Orleans-and-I-am-it, along with his Governor, would have screamed about that, too.

We could have eliminated some time on day three by streamlining a process wherein the national command structure was able to get in and get the job done, but I am not sure that the answers we will see bandied about in the near future are of the sort I, or any one who thinks it through too deeply, will want to see.
Local authorities need a plan for when and how to ask for help, and how to deal with a population that goes berserk after only a day or so of difficulty, but I am not sure that I want to see the national government take over.

[FreedomCalls]

Watch this:

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

This is NOT what we want more of. We do NOT want active duty military performing these type of actions. There is no check on their power, essential to the "checks and balances" in our system. Even this type of use of National Guardsmen, that is the breaking into occupied homes at gunpoint and confiscating their weapons, is worrisome to me. I have Second Amendment concerns over that and that's without mentioning the possible Third Amendment concerns with them occupying the church.

[DugwayDuke]

"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.

[veracious]

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).

[mysterio]

This administration is laying the foundation for tyranny faster than Clinton.