CNN poll about using military for domestic law enforcement

I think the question is
Should there be a U.S. law enforcement role for the military during domestic emergencies
Click to expand...
The military isn't trained to be a police force, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, especially logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus.


Actually this could undermine Posse Comitatus but when we get here it's too late.
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
SUBTITLE A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CHAPTER V--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SUBCHAPTER A--AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
PART 501--EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES
Current through May 7, 2002; 67 FR 30627
§ 501.4 Martial law.
It is unlikely that situations requiring the commitment of Federal Armed Forces
will necessitate the declaration of martial law. When Federal Armed Forces are
committed in the event of civil disturbances, their proper role is to support, not supplant,
civil authority. Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity
gives rise to its creation; necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration.
The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will
depend upon the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time. In most
instances the decision to impose martial law is made by the President, who normally
announces his decision by a proclamation, which usually contains his instructions
concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose
martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances
demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not
permit obtaining prior approval from higher authority (§ 501.2). Whether or not a
proclamation exists, it is incumbent upon commanders concerned to weigh every
proposed action against the threat to public order and safety it is designed to meet, in
order that the necessity therefor may be ascertained. When Federal Armed Forces have
been committed in an objective area in a martial law situation, the population of the
affected area will be informed of the rules of conduct and other restrictive measures the
military is authorized to enforce. These will normally be announced by proclamation or
order and will be given the widest possible publicity by all available media. Federal
Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers previously inoperative in the
affected area, restore and maintain order, insure the essential mechanics of distribution,
 
Do you understand, sendec, that we may realize that the military could certainly be of USE in some situations, but what we object to is your apparent CHEERFULNESS over the idea. You really do seem to just gush about the government's (particularly armed branches of government) ability to get things done, and you are eager for its intervention.

You also rush to be devil's advocate when someone complains about government abuse.


And just because the military COULD be of use in some situations, that doesn't mean it would be the greater of two evils to eschew having the military take the reins. Even if non-military responders might not be as good at taking care of a problem, or as efficient, sometimes it is a bigger problem to set the precedent of having the military do so. Once the camel gets its nose through the tent flap...

-blackmind
 
The military isn't trained to be a police force, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, especially logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus.
Click to expand...


Um, I think you forgot the most basic purpose of a military, and that is
MAKING WAR.


We're talking about the military. Before there was "intelligence," "surveillance," etc., very primitive "militaries" were there simply to kill and conquer (or, yes, defend).

Attempting to apply such a force to domestic circumstances would be disastrous for the liberty of the citizenry, given time.

-blackmind
 
Blackmind, dont you get tired of the constant fear of things that might happen? When was the last time the US military took up arms against the populace, 1900?
 
The things about what might happen is what our checks and balances are about, That is what the Constitutional convention and debates were all about. That is of course unless you think that these people were paranoid.
Massachusetts
John Hancock
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery Connecticut
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark Pennsylvania
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas M' Kean Maryland
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carrol

Virginia
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton North Carolina
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward
Thomas Lynch
Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

No I didn't forget war, Thats a given.
 
Just so I'm clear, a Sheriff's mountain rescue team in Colorado shouldnt have access to military Blackhawks, cause that would be the miltary engaging in domestic LE, right?

And they shouldnt be allowed to loan us thermal imagers when we are looking for fugitives in the woods at night?

And when we get snowed in by blizzards they shouldnt offer the use of their Humvees and sno-cats for us to go on calls in?

Gee guys, maybe you're too late :eek:
 
How is rescue a "law enforcement" function?

Are EMTs and firefighters called "law enforcement officers"?


Using military hardware in rescues, despite your disingenuous example, does not fall under the heading of "using the military to perform LAW ENFORCEMENT tasks."


-blackmind
 
And, um, how is civilian law enforcement officers using loaned military equipment the same as ACTUAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ACTING AS LAW ENFORCEMENT?

You just can't stay with the logic, can you, sendec?


If telling the truth and staying with the premise would destroy your position, you just warp the terms of the discussion, don't you, and hope no one will notice.

Well, we notice.


-blackmind
 
lets see examples
American veterans had been promised by the U.S. government that they would be paid a "bonus" for their service during World War 1. They were to receive $1 for every day they'd served during that war, or $1.5 for each day they served in combat. This "bonus" was supposed to be paid decades later, in the 1940s! When the depression of the 1930s hit, U.S. WWI veterans began a movement to demand that they should not have to wait another 10 years for their bonus. They wanted it to be paid immediately. They began many protests and lobbying efforts. When some veterans from the mid-west began a trek to Washington to demand the bonus. They called themselves the "Bonus Expeditionary Army". They were eventually joined in Washington by tens of thousands of veterans and their families. They set up a shanty town called Hooverville within Washington DC. They held protests and some of the more radical veterans occupied abandoned buildings in the city. General Smedley Butler arose as a strong supporter of the "Bonus Army." Hoover enlisted the Army to drive the vets out of the city. In charge of the Battle of Antacostia was Douglas MacArthur, and his top men were Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton. They used the US Army to crush the Bonus Army. Excessive force was used, several died and Hooverville was burnt to the ground. This helped lead to Roosevelt's election in 1933.
 
The Army is not to be used against US citizens for reasons that a tyrant leader could declare martial law and take over the US with the US military.

Policing the border is domestic security from FOREIGN invaders, which is the intent of the military.

Rescue missions are not law enforcement. Using military equipment in rescue missions is permitted. Using technology designed by the military and purchased by LE is allowed too in their efforts to catch BGs. USING THE MILITARY against US citizens is unconstitutional.
 
leadcounsel said:
The Army is not to be used against US citizens for reasons that a tyrant leader could declare martial law and take over the US with the US military.
Click to expand...


But hey, that's okay with sendec, because they'll promise to not do anything nasty, or get tyrannical in any way. :rolleyes:


-blackmind
 
So where's sendec now that his examples are shredded.

Probably trying to conjure up some other invalid examples in his hopeless quest to demonstrate the benignity of having the military used in domestic civilian matters.

-blackmind
 
I knew someone would trot out the Bonus Army case, that was what, a hundred years ago?

Blackmind, LE isnt all about kicking down doors.
 
Blackmind, dont you get tired of the constant fear of things that might happen? When was the last time the US military took up arms against the populace, 1900?
Click to expand...

Rich posted a few recent links in another thread about this, i think it was my thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top