CNN poll about using military for domestic law enforcement

Seems to me bringing in a group of people to “enforce the law” is a recipe for trouble when those people know little or nothing of the law. The military does not train people in the laws of each of the 50 states, not to mention the local and municipal laws within each state. The military does not even train people in the administration of federal law. And Bush wants to put the military in a “law enforcement” role in the event of a major disaster? Can anyone tell me exactly what law they are going to enforce? Will the soldiers in TX enforce Texas law while the military forces in NY enforce New York law? Or will it be the enforcement of whatever the hell some private walking around with an M16A2 thinks the law is or should be? Do you think that soldier understands even the rudimentary points of Constitutional search & seizure as a trained law enforcement officer would?

I’m betting not. Welcome to the state of martial law. Please check your Constitutional rights at the door.

There is a damned good reason the military shouldn’t be involved in civilian law enforcement; they are not trained in the law. At least with a true law enforcement officer like your state police, a local police department, or the sheriff, there has been at least some rudimentary training on the criminal law in effect within their particular jurisdiction. Even with a body such as the National Guard, they act under the control of the Governor of the state and within the bounds of their state law.

So how long do you really think it would be until your Constitutional rights get trampled in the rush to bring order if law enforcement was being administered by the federal military?

One only has to look to the events in NOLA to see that in such events, even local law enforcement, with particular knowledge and training in the law of that jurisdiction has a hard time getting it right. Illegal confiscations of weapons in NOLA were conducted by local LEOs – who knew the law of NOLA and still acted in violation of it. And you expect the military to respect the law of each of the 50 states and the various municipalities therein? What happens when a disaster occurs in Texas and members of the military from all over the country respond to restore order and act in a law enforcement role?. Do you honestly think they will respect the law of Texas with respect to your guns? Or do you think they might just start the confiscation in the name of “restoring order”? As a Texan you might have a right to own and carry a gun, but if the general who is in charge comes from California, what do you think is going to happen?
 
SiegeBig.gif
 
Shaggy ~

Excellent post, and good points.

I'd like to see some folks on the other side try to answer those points.

pax
 
The Siege....
The word "vapid" comes immediately to mind. It completely missed moral and political dilemmas that it promised to explore.

Did I say vapid?
Rich
 
The military isnt trained in the law and law enforcement? What about each branches' respective police units, each branches' respective criminal investigation units, each branches' respective civil affairs units, each branches' JAG Corp, and the DoD Police. They may not be trained in state statute, but the basic tenents of policing remain the same, whether it is on a military base or not. A vehicle stop is a vehicle stop is a vehicle stop. Breaking up a bar fight doesnt vary much throughout the country.

Why on earth do you all seem convinced that combat branches would assume a LE role when the military already has plenty of LE units? And why the emphasis on combat units? There are many more soldiers in support units than in combat units. Isnt the ratio like 1 to 8, combat soldier to support soldier?
 
sendec;

I'm a civilian. Military LE units are trained to enforce the law of the UCMJ. As a civilian the UCMJ is not applicable to me or any other civilian. Similarly, if you were a Texas resident, would you want NYPD walking around Houston enforcing the laws of NYC?
 
What about each branches' respective police units, each branches' respective criminal investigation units, each branches' respective civil affairs units, each branches' JAG Corp, and the DoD Police.
Click to expand...
Red Herring.
Did anyone here happen to note anywhere in Bush's statements where he referred to sending in only Mil Police, Mil Investigators, Mil Civil Affairs, Jag Corp or DoD Police?

I missed where he made that qualification. I coulda sworn he's repeatedly stated "US Military".....last I checked, they report to the President, not the Governor or the citizens of a State.....they have no obligation to enforce State Law; they need but follow orders of a Federal Commander.

But let's look a bit further. He's made it pretty clear that the "need" would be in a cordon by force; a quarantine. Soooooo, what would we expect he has in mind? The JAG Corp maintaining roadblocks and informing people that the action was quite legal? Or US sons and daughters pointing full-auto rifles at US Civilians with orders to shoot any who fail to comply?

Like I said....Red Herring.
Rich
 
Shaggy:

Agencies swap officers all the time. Look at all the officers who went to NOLA, from across the country. Plus it would take a week, maybe two tops to train an officer from one jurisdiction in the laws and statutes of another. It isnt at all uncommon for officers to jump states, take a short course on their new states' laws and hit the bricks.

There is absolutely no structural reason why military police couldnt be trained on state statutes. Many federal agencies practice concurrent jurisdiction with state and local agencies, this is no different.
 
The Siege....
The word "vapid" comes immediately to mind. It completely missed moral and political dilemmas that it promised to explore.
Click to expand...
Rich, it was "vapid", but what do you expect? It's a movie from Hollywood.
Movies are created to make profit (be entertaining enough to sell tickets), that is all.
Movies aren't made (in the most part) for anything other than business/sales reasons. Don't look to the movies for any kind of leadership or knowledge.

jmho
 
Agencies swap officers all the time.
Click to expand...
Red Herring...again.

The call has not been for US Military to be "loaned" to local jurisdictions. The call has been for US Military to take over those jusrisdictions. That is exactly what the President and those who support those actions have proposed.

Can anyone tell me why sendec doesn't like to reply to me? I'm beginning to get a complex. ;)
Rich
 
Agencies swap officers all the time. Look at all the officers who went to NOLA, from across the country. Plus it would take a week, maybe two tops to train an officer from one jurisdiction in the laws and statutes of another. It isnt at all uncommon for officers to jump states, take a short course on their new states' laws and hit the bricks.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed it but NOLA was a boondoggle where many agents of the government played very fast and loose with the US Constitution and the laws of NOLA. Nevertheless, true LEOs (police, sheriffs, etc.) regardless of what jurisdiction they come from are trained in the basics of Constitutional search and seizure, and general criminal statutes. The military is not. If you've ever been on a military base, you surrendur many of your rights at the gate. You can be searched, your property seized, etc. Training and repositioning a cop from NY to TX is far easier since they alrady have a background and training in civilian law enforcement. The military is only trained in the rules of the UCMJ and administration of martial law.

So are you saying we should now begin training members of the military as a federal police force to administer and enforce state law? I suppose the term "states rights" is not in your vocabulary?

There is absolutely no structural reason why military police couldnt be trained on state statutes.
Click to expand...

Sure!

But thats part of what each state's National Guard is for. They are under the power of the governor of each state, not under the direct power of the executive branch of the federal government. The executive branch of the federal government has no business enforcing state and local laws. Lending equipment and support is one thing, but when you put the federal government in charge of enforcing the law within a state, you've thrown out the delicate balance of power the founding fathers intended. Maybe you're comfortable throwing out the Constitution, but most of us here are not.
 
wayneinFL said:
Again, do you advocate breaking a law to enforce another? Or do you want to hand ultimate power in your state to the president? Don't sidestep it. Answer directly.
Click to expand...


I have been trying to get sendec to answer direct questions for quite some time, in numerous threads, with no success. If something I said was impossible for him to truly discredit or disprove, he has simply ignored it and proceeded on as though I hadn't said it.

-blackmind
 
sendec said:
Agencies swap officers all the time. Look at all the officers who went to NOLA, from across the country. Plus it would take a week, maybe two tops to train an officer from one jurisdiction in the laws and statutes of another.
Click to expand...

So then you're admitting that it would be pretty useless in a real emergency, because there would not be time to train the out-of-staters in the laws that they will be supposed to enforce? :rolleyes:

You admit that it would take one-to-two weeks. How long was it before out-of-state LEOs were in NOLA illegally confiscating people's guns?



sendec said:
There is absolutely no structural reason why military police couldnt be trained on state statutes. Many federal agencies practice concurrent jurisdiction with state and local agencies, this is no different.
Click to expand...


No reason except for the fact that its a horribly dangerous idea to use the military to police the citizenry;

or that most emergencies will happen in a timeframe that doesn't allow the luxury of two weeks of study to brush up on the laws in the new jurisdiction. It doesn't matter that "many federal agencies practice concurrent jurisdiction." I guess you mean that they stay up-to-date about various states' laws because they'll be regularly operating in those states? How does that help in the case of the military? Will all military personnel be required to stay up-to-date on all 50 states' laws? Because otherwise, I see a big problem in trying to hustle them into a place like NOLA without knowledge of the laws they'll have to enforce, due to this issue you brought up of having to study for a week or two first...

-blackmind
 
The purpose of an ARMY, or any Military force is to fight a War. Using the military for Civilian LE is a very bad idea, for many reasons, most of which have already been mentioned by other members.

Sendec,

If you support the use of Active Duty Military for civilian LE purposes, in any emergency, you are no better than the gun grabbers that want to destroy our rights. Like Rich said, today the flu, tomorrow, who knows. Once a precedent is set, it is hard to undo it.

Soldiers are trained to fight a war. Leave it that way, the way the framers intended it.
 
Not to challenge your point because I agree, but IIRC the framers thought that a "standing army" was a bad idea. Kind of goes to further demonstrate how the 2nd should be an individual right I guess.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.
 
Sure after they shut down the city then they get

to stay in your house and you can feed them and wash there clothes for them.

Lets find some one who is familiar with the constitution and over turn it. :barf:

This new Supreme Court Justice with this new lady friend of the Presidents will have that ammendment shut down. We are in for the big one.

Where is my congressman???

Plus I did not vote that is for others. I am to busy sitting on my couch and drinking my colt 45 and BSen with the Platoon Commander here, we are from the same town in Texas....Or is it the same college? I can't remember I have had a 12 pack and ereere :eek: :barf: oops..

Harley :D
 
I am not fond of this idea though I can see using the National guard as a humanatarian force in times of need to help in national disaster or if the upcoming flu gets out of control to help those in need. I do not condone the use of the regular full time military or reserves. The national guard is more a state run unit though can be called on by the federal government. I do not feel the military should be used as a police force in the CONUS only if for some reason we had a disaster or attack of unprecidented magnitude and things got so bad the police and guard were overrun or could not meet the mission demands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top