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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Should Consider Giving Military Arrest Powers, Ridge Says
Bloomberg.com ^ | 7/21/02 | Alex Canizares

Posted on 07/21/2002 9:38:40 AM PDT by GeneD

Edited on 07/19/2004 2:10:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; defensedepartment; dod; donaldrumsfeld; homelandsecurity; joebiden; possecomitatusact; terrorism; tomridge; usmilitary; vetscor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last
To: NetValue

The FBI is the tool to catch said terrorists.

41 posted on 07/21/2002 10:34:21 AM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
A whole bunch of people have lost their right to tease the French since 9/11, imo..

LOL.

I'd say many Americans are making the French look bold as of late. It's embarassing.

42 posted on 07/21/2002 10:34:50 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GeneD; First_Salute
Amerika
43 posted on 07/21/2002 10:35:23 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
"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.

44 posted on 07/21/2002 10:37:03 AM PDT by NetValue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
I would consider protecting our borders to be a matter of National security that should be, in part, the responsibility of the Armed Forces.
45 posted on 07/21/2002 10:37:16 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I don't mean to bother you..

But I would bet money you wouldn't want this to slip by without reading it.

46 posted on 07/21/2002 10:38:07 AM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang

(Not exactly about guns, but extremely relevant in principle.)
47 posted on 07/21/2002 10:38:47 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
"He better disown this bastard child real quick"

Bush doesn't "own" Biden- so how is he to disown Biden for advocating a weakening of Posse Comitatus?

Ridge merely says "it may come up as a part of a discussion. It does not mean that it will ever be used or that the discussion will conclude that it even should be used.'' "

48 posted on 07/21/2002 10:40:13 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I agree. The military should not be in the business of being a police force. Leave that power in the hands of the local authorities.
49 posted on 07/21/2002 10:40:37 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Confucius
The other was Clinton waiving it so that the Delta Force could participate in Waco.

There are two existing exceptions to Posse Commitatus, as I understand the law: Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Drugs.

The reason that Janet Reno conjured up non-existent evidence of a Meth Lab at Mount Carmel was specifically so that the miliary could be called in.

I don't think clinton had to waive the Posse Commitatus act, even if he had the power to do so (doubtful).

50 posted on 07/21/2002 10:41:12 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
I only support use of troops at our borders. That has nothing to do with arresting our citizens, but with capturing invaders.
51 posted on 07/21/2002 10:41:16 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to ... [blah blah]"

There's nothing to "reconcile." I'm not in favor of any of those uses for the military either. You must have me confused with an idiot.

52 posted on 07/21/2002 10:41:52 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Personally I interpret this as a trial balloon and a true indicator of the thickness of Ridge's head.

53 posted on 07/21/2002 10:42:37 AM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
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.

Armed volunteers (militia) or paid police can defend these targets. Not regular military. I support the men and women in our military, but I do not want them used for domestic law enforcement.

Of course, if our borders were secure, the point would be moot. It's a lot easier to secure 6000 miles of border than literally hundreds of thousands of potential targets. The fact that this isn't being done should raise some red flags.

What do you think about having foreign troops here? Because that's who will be guarding these assets eventually.

54 posted on 07/21/2002 10:43:39 AM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
mrsmith..

Do you honestly believe that Biden just happened along, and just "happened" to be thinking along these lines????

Proposals such as this do not happen in a vacumn.

55 posted on 07/21/2002 10:43:57 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
we'll all be broke and living in a quasi National Socialist state.

Cradled in the stern but loving arms of our paternalist government that provides guidance and sustenance for its wayward children.

Uncle Stalin's dream come true.

56 posted on 07/21/2002 10:44:21 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
Our National Guard and militias exist to provide domestic defense. Our police are our CIVIL enforcement agents, along with the (dangerous and largely incompetent) FBI and other DOJ/Treasury agencies. But the purpose of a military is vastly at odds with the purpose of a policing agency.

The military accomplishes its goals without regard for collateral damage, domestic niceties, or constitutional rights. That's why its personnel are governed under the UCMJ instead of civil and/or constitutional law. (That is also why an international criminal court is such an abomination, by the way.) In pursuit of its objectives, the military is empowered to use whatever force is necessary, including mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and life. Not so the police, who are constrained by the Bill of Rights (at least nominally).

To unleash the power of the military upon a civilian population is to pit a tiger against a tabby cat. Our armed forces were never intended to shoot down their own brothers and sisters.

57 posted on 07/21/2002 10:53:13 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Ridge did not say "domestic law enforcement". He said "the power to arrest" which in a domestic terrorist situation is very appropriate.
58 posted on 07/21/2002 10:54:14 AM PDT by NetValue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
The military should never be used for domestic law enforcement

What is the definition of is?

Does domestic refer to the location of the arrest or the nationality of the suspect.

Defining domestic as pertaining to location would seem to preclude the defense of the nation if foreign invaders could get a foot on US soil. Seems to me that this legislation is redundent since our military already posses the power that Ridge et al are seeking.

59 posted on 07/21/2002 10:54:21 AM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
OTOH There is no way that the subject of Posse Comitatus could NOT come up in discussions about the Homeland Security Dept.

BTW: If anyone wants to look into the Nunn- Biden (and Warner!) amendment he was talking about: AMENDMENT NO. 1251 (Senate - June 06, 1995)
[Page: S7797]

"...shall not authorize arrest or any assistance in conducting searches and seizures that seek evidence related to violations of this section, except for the immediate protection of human life. "

Puts bio and chem weapons under the same exemptiom from Posse Comitatus that nuke weapons are under now.

Heck, a Governor can decide in 10 minutes that he needs federal forces to defend against such an attack- and ask for it.
No need to change the law.

60 posted on 07/21/2002 10:54:59 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last

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.

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