Northern Command General Endorses Posse Comitatus Review

Although Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the Pentagon would not seek any changes in the venerable Posse Comitatus Act that restricts the use of the military in domestic operations, President Bush's new plan for domestic security included a notable provision calling for Justice and Defense attorneys to review it. Now Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, the officer charged with defending the continental U.S., has gone on record that he’s all for it and would endorse changes in the law if that translated into a better-defended country.

"My view has been that Posse Comitatus will constantly be under review as we mature this command, as we do our exercises, as we interact with FEMA, F.B.I., and those lead federal agencies out there," the New York Times quoted Gen. Eberhart Sunday.

The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted after the Civil War in response to the perceived misuse of federal troops who were charged with keeping order in the South.

Despite the Act’s restrictions on using military forces to performing domestic law enforcement duties, the law has been amended and loosened in modern times. Examples: assisting federal agencies in drug interdiction work, protecting national parks, executing quarantine and certain health laws – and most recently supporting civilian agencies at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City this year.

The Times noted that the willingness of General Eberhart and some other senior officers to consider amending the law signals a shift in thinking by many top Pentagon officials, who have historically steered away from involving the military in domestic law enforcement.

Since 9/11 the act has caused some dilemmas, according to the Times report. When National Guard troops were deployed on the Canadian border after Sept. 11, the Posse Comitatus law prevented those troops from conducting surveillance from the helicopters that flew them to their assignment.

In another example, administration lawyers opined that President Bush would violate Posse Comitatus if he directly called up National Guard troops to help provide security at airports nationwide. Bush instead asked governors to use their call-up authority to perform the same task.

Eberhart’s new Northern Command, which officially kicks off on Oct. 1, will run military flying patrols over American cities, search the waters up to 500 miles off the United States coast, and respond to major terrorist attacks.

Eberhart has said that he is anxious to use new technology, including unmanned surveillance blimps cruising at 70,000 feet and Predator drones scanning American coastlines.

The general said it was also possible that the North American Aerospace Defense Command would expand beyond the United States and Canada to include Mexico.

"To defend this nation, we have to defend as far out as possible," General Eberhart said. "Therefore we need the support of Canada and Mexico to be able to defend our interests."

To me, as a retired military officer with over 23-years of active service, this option of the deployment of American troops inside of America was never in the cards.

We had a simple rule: Never point your weapons in the direction of 'friendlys.' So by simple extension, we as a military kept our weapons 'pointed' outside of our borders. Could it be that there may be some people view the American Citizens as 'Non-Friendly Personnel?'

As a college professor of political science, my view is once again pretty simplistic: The founding father's kept up the cadence in the early years of this Republic that a standing Federal Military on American soil was a threat to the peoples liberty, and the soveriegn rights of the States. If I accept the founders position on 'All men being created equal...with rights granted by natures God' then I have to believe that they were quite correct in this respect also.

Our Federal Military Weapons should be 'pointed' outside of our borders. Period.

At least the Military has been ready for this for almost ten years, now.

Question 46. The stated scenario

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this p eriod, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

No opinion Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

The Responses

Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.

The outcome of the survey was as follows:

Strongly disagree 127 42.33%

Disagree 58 19.33%

Agree 56 18.67%

Strongly agree 23 07.67%

No opinion 36 12.00%

Total: 300 100.00%

Summary of the responses to question 46.

The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey qu estions; "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks on their response or written comments in the margin space."

Is there a problem here?

What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire.

In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily organized into a unit that would obey such orders.

AFAIK the only exemption to Posse Comitatus is when nuclear materials are involved. So, if there are terrorists in CONUS who are attempting to set of a "dirty nuke" bomb, the military can intervene here.

The only other exemptions I'd make are if biological or chemical weapons are involved, and that is only because the military has expertise that local LE and FD's often lack.

Otherwise, leave the cops and sheriffs responsible for law enforcement.

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.