[jacquej]

OK, some "head" on Fox said that since these predator drones were unmanned, that the "posse commitatas"(sp?) rule/law would not be violated.

Here is what I find presently confuddling.

If we were to find ourselves under attack by sniper cells in this country, (and that is a big "IF", please note) does the "posse" law mean that we cannot have our armed services defending the populace?

Or, is it just too upsetting to the body politic, the stock market, and our shopping as usual to have the army or marines out beating through the parking lot landscaping and neighborhood parks to look for guerilla terrorists?

Someone explain under what circumstances we can use our miltitary for the common defense? I am clueless.

[Solson]

Stupid question time: If we use drones, how exactly will that help? If I'm the sniper, I look up in the sky, see if a drone is there, if not...I pull the trigger. If so, I keep driving.

Wouldn't camera's on all major on-ramps be more effective?

[Dog]

There is a real law....that states they can not be used inside our borders as LE.

[dhfnc]

Someone explain under what circumstances we can use our miltitary for the common defense? I am clueless.

My understanding is that we would have to be under attack from a foreign government. Would AQ qualify? Don't know the answer to that. However, we did have military protecting us, from the air, after Sept. 11. and also, look at the extra protection on Sept 11, 02 in D.C. and NYC.

[dinasour]

Pretty good discussion here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/769517/posts

This is a post civil war law (not a constitutional issue) that has a lot of loopholes, if someone needed to exploit it. For example, as I understand it, the Navy doesn't apply, so they could send in the Marines.

It could be repealed, as well, but Tom Daschle would want UN approval first.

[Kip Lange]

Someone explain under what circumstances we can use our miltitary for the common defense? I am clueless.

As far as I know -- when the President, as C-I-C, orders it...am I wrong? Congress can dissent, of course, but he has the say on national security, oui? (in theory)

--KL

[Letitring]

As a premiere shopper, I can assure you it wouldn't bother me one bit to have a bunch of Army and Marine types running around my mall. :)Seriously, I've no idea what the rules are when it pertains to this. I do know there is alot of difference in the way our Law Enforcement people are trained, vs. the way the military is trained. Thank Goodness. I don't mean that disrespectful. Just that our military is trained to KILL the enemy, and leo's are trained to arrest us. :)Generally speaking.

[browardchad]

Someone explain under what circumstances we can use our miltitary for the common defense? I am clueless.

From the U.S Coast Guard

Posse Comitatus Act
Source: G-OPL

"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.