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.

[Tench_Coxe]

Why? It is topical when taken in the context of a hypothetical grab for power. The Roman Republic was rife with Senators attempting to gain influence which resulted in large scale corruption. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, that all changed.

At that point, most new Emperors were installed with the help of military allies, and it was not unusual for someone attempting to take the reigns of power to bump off the current Emperor. This did not result in very long life spans for most, with the exception of those few periods where the rule was relatively benign and some reforms were attempted.

Now, if you are knee-jerking, as I suspect you are, please hit the abuse button and have my previous post removed if you are so inclined.

[healey22]

The military should be deployed only to the borders facing Mexico and Canada and the INS should deploy all border patrol agents inside of the United States for interior enforcement.

[Texasforever]

Now, if you are knee-jerking, as I suspect you are, please hit the abuse button and have my previous post removed if you are so inclined

I don't use the abuse button.

[cynicom]

Dug...

Partner, you read a whole lot of things into a post that are not there, no one else seems to see them. As far as military matters go, what you say sounds very scary to me, and I would suggest caution if you ever think of over riding civil rule. You scare me. I was military once and never met anyone like you.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, I certainly agree with that. Unfunding Washington will be the ultimate solution to the problem.

[chicago charlie]

I would add it is "dictatorial"... well, george the lesser did say that it would be easier if this were a dictatorship -as long as he was the dictator... me thinks that we have been sold a bill of goods... in retrospect, an illicit BJ from a willing intern doesn't seem quite so threatening to the republic, does it...?

[DugwayDuke]

My friend: You said: "Arrest Ridge for not caring a damn about individual freedom and the constitution." Now, just where did I: "read a whole lot of things into a post that are not there, no one else seems to see them." when I noted that suggesting that a rethinking of a law is not a violation of the constitution?

Now, as for the fact you think I'm scary ("You scare me. I was military once and never met anyone like you."), I would suggest that a military that would stand idly by and let millions die rather than violate Posse Comitatas is "scary".

But, let me clairify. Certainly civil forces should be the first line of defense, but suppose some scenario where no civil forces are available and you have the power to stop a WMD attack that is imminent. If you act millions are saved. If you don't act, millions die. But if you act, Posse Comitatus is violated. Would you save millions and risk a jail sentence? All I'm saying is that most officers would act.

[philman_36]

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.

[Teacher317]

"The military should never be used for domestic law enforcement."
Think about what you are saying! Do you think the police are equipped or adequately trained to protect our canals, power plants, reservoirs, nuclear power facilities, the power distribution grid, refineries, and dams? You will need the military to protect these if this war really takes hold as expected. Let's not make foolish decisions.

Speaking of foolish, do you really expect the military to defend the power grid throughout the deserts of the US? You truly believe that this would be an effective use of manpower? You do realize that lines DO break down and get repaired all the time, without any military presence at all, don't you? You also realize that "protecting" reservoirs is basically impossible (consider the already publicized crop-duster plans would not be prevented by ground troops, or even F-16's which would take too long to get there in time... unless you want anti-aircraft guns at every site). "Protecting" dams and canals is a nice idea, but logistically improbable, and a huge waste of resources. Besides, if they take out one of ours, I'm sure they know that the Aswan and the Suez are tasty little targets themselves. (MAD works!) Refineries are more numerous and less dangerous (and therefore less critical) than the nuclear power plants... and there's plenty of security measures at the nukes already, and can easily be handled by local enforcement.

To sum up, there is NO valid reason (and NO effective increase in security at the sites you mentioned) to use the military against American citizens... including the ones who are terrorists. You'll notice that not one single Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine soldier was used or needed in the apprehension of Richard Jewell (poor guy) or Timothy McVeigh (consipracy theories aside for the moment, no sympathy for him).

This is yet another attempt to morph "law enforcement" into "crime prevention", which is an absolute impossibility. The only result is a loss of Freedom, and yet another huge increase in Federal authority.

[Teacher317]

The implementation of checkpoints on roads that we Americans paid for, constitutes "the line" for a lot of patriots.

Sadly, Indianapolis fought for, and won, the power to use random checkpoints for seatbelts (and sobriety?) at will. My far east-side home went up for sale yesterday.

[Teacher317]

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.

Thank you! There ARE some good minds and many heroes and potential heroes in the military. I was hoping one would make it to this board!

[dcwusmc]

Your remark is true as far as it goes, it is not a Constitutional question. However, I have to agree with cynicom re: Jail Tom Ridge. He and the rest of the crop of professional politicians do nothing with the Constitution except wipe their a$$es with it.

[dcwusmc]

WRT your comments regarding WMD, I agree. In that case, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than permission and your zeal to live up to your oath is commendible.... in the finest traditions of the service. However, I am rather concerned about many of our current crop of service people who have come up through the gooberment skools all their lives and then gone into the military that has suffered from the eight Clowntoon years plus, IMHO, at least SOME of the Bush I years of drawdown and politicization. These people would not hesitate to follow Unconstitutional and unlawful orders for the simple reason they don't KNOW better because they have never been taught better. WHEN do they learn about the Constitution? WHAT do they learn about it? Only what those IN POWER want them to know, despite so-called "party labels." I doubt that one of 1000 would be able to discuss the BoR or the limits on FedGov power that the Constitution is all about.

Are you on Active Duty now? I invite you to cut and paste the URL here: http://www.VetsCoR.org and come visit Veterans for Constitutional Restoration.

David Wright

[DugwayDuke]

"However, I have to agree with cynicom re: Jail Tom Ridge."

Oh, cynicom may well be right, I was only pointing out that he was in hot pursuit for the wrong reason.

" In that case, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than permission and your zeal to live up to your oath is commendible.... in the finest traditions of the service."

Those are kind words and thank you for taking the time to express them. However, I must admit some lack of knowledge on my part. I haven't really studied Posse Comitatus. I merely reacted thinking that no law would stand that would require the military not to do it's duty to defend the American people.

I've taken a small amount of time to study this act more and I've found it's so shot full of holes with exceptions as to be almost pointless. There are even a few documents available on the web that argue that it almost needs re-enactment.

But, having said that, even a cursory examination of this act reveals that it does not prohibit the exercise by the military or the president any constitutionally granted powers. Posse Comitatus does not prohibit the military from taking action to defend the United States or it's citizens. Meaning that in the scenario I described, any officer who claimed that he could not act because of this act would be derelict of his oath and duties. A moments reflection should confirm this. How can an Act of Congress nulify a power granted by the Constitution? It cannot, therefore the military would be free to act in that scenario.

[DugwayDuke]

"As far as military matters go, what you say sounds very scary to me, and I would suggest caution if you ever think of over riding civil rule. You scare me. I was military once and never met anyone like you."

I hadn't really studied Posse Comitatus before and I'm certainly no expert now but there is a wealth of information available on the web that you might find interesting.

One of the things I've learned is that I'm on very firm legal grounds. You see this act does not prohibit the exercise by the military or the president any constitutionally granted powers. Or to say it in an other way, Posse Comitatus does not prohibit the military from taking action to defend the United States or it's citizens. Meaning that in the scenario I described, the military would be free to act and that any officer who claimed that he could not act because of this act would be derelict of his oath and duties. A moments reflection should confirm this. How can an Act of Congress nulify a power granted by the Constitution? It cannot, therefore the military would be free to act in that scenario.

That said, I agree with you that Posse Comitatus doesn't need to be further weakened by more exceptions. (You might wish to read up on the extend of the existing exceptions.) The military has no business in becoming involved in matters that properly within the scope of civilian law enforcement. Any politician that thinks this act needs to be revised is simply wrong. If anything (and there is a rather nice but long CATO paper on this) this act needs to be strenghtened by reducing the number of these existing exceptions.

One other little thing I learned in my research that I think you'll find troubling. This act prevents the use of the Army and Airforce in civilian law enforcement. There is no prohibition on the use of the Navy. Since the Marine Corps is a part of the Navy, our politicians can use the Marine Corps to do anything and everything prohibited to the Army and Navy.

PS. Don't tell Ridge about the Marine Corps. I doubt the politicians will figure that out on their own.

[packrat01]

It is ``not very realistic'' to deny the military the ability, for example, to shoot at suspected terrorists trying to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on a passenger train, Biden said.

What's the military doing on the passenger train in the first place?

If somebody needs shootin', shoot 'em; acting as a citizen, subject to the same rules as everyone else.

[joyce11111]

This is a Joe Biden position...get your facts straight.

[joyce11111]

This is a Joe Biden position...get your facts straight.

[joyce11111]

It is the libs that are for this, read the paper.

[joyce11111]

You seem to enjoy bashing the Prez, on any subject.