U.S. Should Consider Giving Military Arrest Powers, Ridge Says

Bloomberg.com ^ | 7/21/02 | Alex Canizares

[GeneD]

Washington, July 21 (Bloomberg) -- The government should consider reversing a more than a century of tradition and law to give the military authority to make arrests and fire their weapons on U.S. soil in the event of a terrorist attack, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said.

[Jhoffa_]

Obergruppenfuehrer Ridge has spoken!

psssst.. Hey, can we post "Obergruppenfuehrer" on FR?

(Can you say it in church or to someone's mom?)

[PatrioticAmerican]

I believe such actions by the military is called, "Martial Law". Called anything else, it is still martial law.

[Jhoffa_]

Start a new one? Free Republic Party?

Never work..

It would split immediately into the:

"Legalize pot party" and the "brazen idol worshipers party" and the "bush bashers party" and the "I REALLY DO deserve to have a nuke in my backyard party" and and thus marginalize itself.

(the thought does make me smile though.. )

[PatrioticAmerican]

Two things:

1. Define "terrorist attack".

2. Define "army". Ours our "theirs"? Ours is so thin that they would need foreign armies to do the job.

[Tribune7]

If Joe Biden -- or any Democrat for that matter -- is in favor of this kind of assault on our civil liberties, then it should be setting off alarms all over Conservative-dom.

I watched Biden -- who always struck me as being a tough-guy wannabe-- this morning on Tony Snow. He's up for election this November. His opponent, Ray Clatworthy, is making terror a major issue. Clatworthy's ads are playing up his military experience.

Biden's stance on Fox appeared to me to be a sign that he might be nervous about the race.

[Mulder]

The Important People have already decided that we need a single, unified government taking care of all the world's needs. Now they need to implement it.

You're correct. Our "leaders" are already moving towards a North American Union, which will be a prelude to a global government.

[DugwayDuke]

"Arrest Ridge for not caring a damn about individual freedom and the constitution."

Hold on there partner, read the article, it's "The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878" and not the Constitution in question. Congress passed this Act meaning it's a law.

That said, there really isn't much point in changing the law. You can conjure up all sorts of examples such as the military being unable to intevene in a WMD scenario, but I think such scenarios are unrealistic.

Suppose there was a nuclear bomb set to go off on US soil and the only way it could be stopped involved the use of the US Army. I, for one, and I am a commissioned officer, would find a reason to get involved regardless of Posse Comitatus. There's simply no way I, or any other officer, would let a WMD event occur, if it could be stopped, just because I was afraid of being in violation of a law. I'd take my chances in front of Court Martial instead. My defense would be that any law that required me to stand idly by while thousands of my fellow citizens were killed was un-constitutional.

[Living Stone]

Hillary! is sure gonna have some neat internal security mechanisms to work with when she gets elected president.

[Jhoffa_]

Biden's stance on Fox appeared to me to be a sign that he might be nervous about the race.

That makes sense, trying to sieze the "high ground" in the WOT. Gonna be tougher and more nannyish than all his rivals.

Out of curiosity I took a look at some (ahem) "friends" of ours from across the isle to see if they were discussing it. They are and from what I read if he wasn't worried about the reace before, he had better be now.

Their thread is a carbon copy of this one.. This idea is universally unacceptable to nearly everyone it seems.

If you are right, then Biden had better start back peddling pretty quick, because he surely stepped right in it.

[cynicom]

Dug....

Hold on partner...Read that again. Nowhere did I tie Ridge to the Posse act. In fact I do not mention it at all.

That said, if you were to take the law unto your own hands, I think you might well have to answer for your actions in a civil court, I would not wait for the military to act. Good intentions are just that and sometimes are misguided. I want no part of military power of arrest and that is what this is about.

[old school]

Duke! Duke! Duke! First of all, the notion that any of "our" super-sleuths (in government) would be able to detect such an event, antecedent to the actual occurrence, is preposterous! I mean, their track record ain't exactly commendable! Nevertheless, I still think that the job could be handled by the Feebs or the local coppers! No need for the Military at this point. These government people are quite hysterical, and unjustifiably so, IMHO.

[Tribune7]

I always worry about the "soccer mom" vote. People who act on the basis of what sounds good or what is fashionable.

But I think you're right. Biden stepped in it. Of course, I could never figure out why anybody would vote for that talking a$$-pimple in the first place.

[Jhoffa_]

Let's hope he sticks to his guns and get's thrown out on his keyster..

One of them even called him a "turncoat liberal" (LOL!)

[Tribune7]

One of them even called him a "turncoat liberal" (LOL!)

You would think they would understand that a good socialist progressive would welcome the military having police powers. :-)

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. Great comments. I wouldn't mind seeing some study group work on a non-professional military. Frankly, at the moment I can't visualize how that would work successfully. The world is a rather complex place these days.

[IronJack]

Our "leaders" are already moving towards a North American Union,

Witness NAFTA and GATT. And our open borders with Mexico. And the fact that apparently relations with Vincente Fox are more important than protecting our own citizens against further depredations at the hands of Islamic terrorists.

All continuing under our Glorious Republican Leader.

[DoughtyOne]

Interesting comments. I think the one six year term does have merits.

[IronJack]

I feared Bush as a friend of the One Worlders. He's done nothing to allay that fear.

[Fred Mertz]

IJ, you've said it brother. It's what's happening.

I just don't understand why more people don't see it for what it is.

[VaBthang4]

I dont mind using US troops to augment national security but there is no legitimate reason to give Soldiers the ability to legally arrest anyone. If they run into anything...they are more than capable of detaining a suspect until local or federal authorities arrive.

If after the proper authorities get there and make a determination that an individual meets the threashold[sp?] of being a terrorist then the Military Police can arrest the individual and take him into Military custody.

I know I am a simple guy but why in the heck does the Government have to make everything so friggin difficult?

Heck if they are a terrorist then just shoot'em on sight.