Posted on 08/16/2002 6:17:36 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
The Bush administration tells us they might change the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), which forbids the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. They don't want their hands tied if they have to defend the country against a terrorist attack, they explain, and the PCA might get in their way. This is part of their ongoing policy of "putting everything on the table" that might conceivably help eradicate terrorism. In the hunt for the world's evil-doers, they don't want to come up short on power. It's almost touching the way PCA is being discussed in the media, as if we were actually a country under the rule of law. Thus, we hear Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, say, "I don't fear looking at [PCA] to see whether . . . our military can be more helpful." [1] Another defender of the Constitution, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., tells us: "I think it is time to revisit it. . . . Let's say you had word that there was something going on in one of the tunnels in Amtrak . . . Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot to kill . . ." [2] Shooting to kill something going on in an Amtrak tunnel . . . or maybe a shopping mall . . . or your living room. I'm sure if Biden had flopped as an American politician he would make the cut in any number of banana republics. Freedom-loving people have always been distrustful of the military, and our colonists were no exception. The troops that King George III garrisoned here in 1763 after he kicked the French out were a major grievance with Americans, and not just because they were taxed to pay for them. The signers of the Declaration of Independence specifically attacked military independence from civilian control, a standing army in time of peace, and the quartering of troops in private homes. The Washington University Law Quarterly in 1997 notes that fear "of a standing army helped to motivate the enactment of the Bill of Rights . . ." [3] But the lessons learned slipped from memory. Under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, federal marshals were empowered to use the military to help return a slave to his owner. The marshals went beyond the letter of the law, frequently calling out the army to control hostilities between pro-and anti-slave forces. During Reconstruction, the military became the enforcers of the North's political agenda for the South, a situation that fomented massive injustice, corruption, and crime, and led to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan. The election of 1876, in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel J. Tilden by a single electoral vote, turned on Grant's imposition of the military. Hayes won the disputed votes of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida after Grant had sent troops to those states for use at the polls, if needed. "This misuse of the military in an election—the most central event to a democracy (sic)—led Congress to enact the PCA in 1878." [4] Several points leap out from the current PCA talk, besides the monotonous lie about the government acting in our self-interest. First, in discussing the merits of changing the PCA, government is trying to give the impression they operate under written law. Second, making this discussion public means it is not a critical issue to them. The federal government is no longer restrained by law. It can circumvent any legal barrier. The only force keeping officials in line is fear of losing office. Washington has instituted corruption, plunder, waste, and war on the American people — while claiming to be our public servants. It is no longer a joke to say politicians are crooks. With all the power they wield, they're a threat to human life. Sure, we've got our Bill of Rights, much like an infant has its pacifier. And just as a pacifier lacks any reality behind it, so too are the first Ten Amendments losing their meaning. Politicians tell us the times call for a re-evaluation of our cherished sovereignties. They assure us we need the Patriot Act, TIPS, national ID cards, unarmed pilots, disarmed citizens, a massive new federal bureaucracy, and federalized screeners frisking grandmothers to root out the terrorists among us. And now, possibly, a revamping of PCA, just in case grandma is caught smuggling her atom bomb and has to be neutralized. The central government of the United States dominates every other political body. If it violates the Constitution, who's going to punish it? Not the states. As checks on the power of federal encroachment, states rights died at Appomattox. Certainly not the vast majority of American voters. If polls are at all accurate, Americans believe our government needs to be even bigger. The PCA discussion is a sham, a sideshow intended to deceive the public into believing we have statesmen in office who respect the rule of law. Whether PCA gets changed is immaterial. The commander-in-chief has the unconstitutional but uncontested power to issue executive orders, which makes him a one-man legislative body. All he needs is the right crisis, and the PCA or any other law can mean whatever he dictates. Since 1935 presidents, at their discretion, have published executive orders in the Federal Register. Some decisions never reach the Register and are implemented informally as orders to subordinates, or "memoranda," thereby staying hidden from public view. [5] What is known for sure is that a president exercising this power is ruling by fiat, not law. Our government has assured us we will be hit a second time. For once they're right — we've already taken a second hit. Bin Laden doesn't have to dive bomb our nuclear plants or poison our water. He's done something infinitely more effective: he's sicced our government on us. The Feds will finish the job he started, while most of the country cheers them on.
References1. Will Military Enforce Domestic Law? Joseph D'Agostino, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=284332. Ibid. 3. The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle in Need of Renewal, Washington University Law Quarterly, Summer, 1997, Vol. 75., No. 2, http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html#fn37 4. Ibid. 5. Execuitve Orders and National Emergencies: How presidents have come to "run the country" by usurping legislative power, Policy Analysis No. 358, October 28, 1999, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. George F. Smith is a freelance writer. His other articles may be found in the Writer Index. |
You'd be one of the first ones fragged.
Not really.
The truly great strategists were not especially logical--they could make some amazing sideward leaps of intuition, and were frequently the despair of of their headquarters staffs in that regard.
I think you are mistaken in thinking they wouldn't wage war against their own people. I used to think otherwise, but recently I've come to the conclusion that we've passed the point of no return. We're going to get the dictatorship that the american people seem to be demanding, and there isn't a thing you or I can do about it.
Only a relatively few of us will not submit quietly, and we'll be labeled 'terrorists' or whatever else the Fedgov/media conglomerates feel like calling us, and the rest of the sheeple will go along willingly as long as they can have a temporary illusion of safety.
Look at Chile after Pinochet. The left has gained power again. The very socialists he and his military opposed have returned with a vengeance. The same is happening all over South America.
No, I don't think that is the solution. An aware, free and armed civilian population is the best defence of liberty.
To: Sir Gawain; Poohbah
I'm actually with RINO Bush on this one.
A) the military would be fairer than civilian police and probably better at stopping street crime.
B) The type of people who enter the military aren't as authoritarian in nature as police and if the government tried to use the military to abuse people there would be a coup, resulting in the destruction of our current corrupt government and the end of the abomination of Democracy..."
"followed by a true conservative military government given the overwhelming number of conservatives in the officier corp.
# 10 by weikel
You have just said that civilian government is incapable of fairness, and should be replaced by a benevolent military dictatorship.
It's hard for me to believe that's what you meant to say. Could you rephrase your opinion?
We will have a dictatorship anyway and Ill explain why. Social Security cannot be paid for but it will also be too unpopular to end it. The pols will then start paying out benefits by debasing the dollar on a massive scale. This will eventually cause a total economic collapse. A Caesar of some kind will be named to resolve the crisis. Now if Caesar is a military man he will probably be conservative if he comes from our corrupt political class he'll probably be some blowhard commie meglomaniac like McCain or Lieberman.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
That's not how it works. The military is used to quell any large disturbances and the civilian authorities do their thing from behind the shield of the troops. That's exactly what happened in 1967 at the Pentagon. A company of Combat Engineers repelled a violent group of antiwar demonstrators and established a line with the peaceful demonstrators. Once things calmed down, some Federal Marshals used our line to snatch some sit-down demonstrators from the crowd. Their targets were apparently at random and they seemed to like teenaged girls. They weren't reluctant to use their billy clubs.
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.