Using Military as civilian law enforcers?

B

BerettaCougar

New member
What are your opinions on...

1) The military being used as local/state law enforcers, working side by side or maybe above police/deputies?

2) The military doing armed patrols (like in NO).

3) The military and local officials doing joint home invasions, and searches.

---

I dont like it!
One step closer to total control.
 
The reason I ask, is because I just saw on the news, a clip from NO, and it showed a group of about 15 soldiers, from various states national guards, doing an armed patrol in NO, armed with their m16 styled rifles.

They had full camo, and some had on BPV's, looked like a clip from Iraq.
 
Yes, and they are talking about it now on the news.

Seems some people want to render it, and modifying it to allow the military to do such things more often.
 
From the link you provided TBM.

The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;
Click to expand...

Doesnt this give him the power to just deploy troops into US states at will?
Not that it's probable, but is it possible?
 
Yep, it does, under certain circumstances. And it has happened quite a bit, actually. The L.A. riots in the early '90s, following Hurricane Andrew, the Atlanta and Salt Lake City Olympic games all saw deployment of active duty military to perform what amounted to civilian law enforcement.

There's a great article about the PCA here: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

Here's an excerpt:
The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military’s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act’s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.
Click to expand...
 
Article

In its zeal to help (or to look busy, at least), the federal government often winds up hurting its own citizens. Part of this can be blamed on the horse-built-by-committee nature of Congress; more has to do with with the irresistible urge to tinker with politics. Whichever party is strongest at any given time will attempt to advance its agenda — often with disastrous results.

Here are a couple of recent examples — one a done deed, the other a potential problem that should be nipped in the bud:


After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Americans clamored for security.
What they got was worthy of Benjamin Franklin's aphorism: Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.

They got neither with the USA Patriot Act.

That bit of Mom-and-apple-pie-sounding legislation has been more about rifling through ordinary citizens' personal lives than about catching terrorists. One scheme involved having libraries and bookstores report on the reading habits of individual Americans ...

Now, the minute Osama bin Laden is spotted browsing the stacks in Barnes & Noble or the public library, we might consider this idea. There are more sinister uses for the Patriot Act than can be listed here. For a complete text and explanation of the Act, visit www.hqda.army.mil/rio/ links/usa%20patriot520act% 20explanation.htm.


Sept. 11 also spawned the creation of the largest federal bureaucracy since Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration: The Department of Homeland Security. The horrifying events of this past month provided us with an evaluation of that agency's performance. We pray that the response for Hurricane Rita goes more smoothly.

Now, as the imagery of the chaos that was (and is) the Gulf Coast is still fresh in everyone's minds, Congress wants to book us reservations for a new season in hell: The repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.
That act — one crafted while our government was still sane — forbade the use of federal troops as civil law enforcement officers.

That is a good thing.

There is a certain sense of security (of the right kind) when American citizens know they will not be killed by their own soldiers.

Those of a certain age recall the horror that the killings at Kent State brought. Multiply that event by magnitudes to see how serious this could be.

Congress wants to take away more of our liberties. We can't allow that to happen. Use the addresses in the box on this page to tell our elected representatives to say "no" to using our armed forces for anything other than aiding in evacuations and disaster relief in times of crisis.

Our state-run National Guard units have done a fine job when needed — with the sad exception of Kent State.

One of the reasons is because it's different when the uniform is worn by a neighbor from down the street instead of a stranger from far away. The neighbor isn't as likely to start shooting.

Too many bricks in the beautiful building we call the U.S. Constitution have been loosened. The structure is in danger of coming down. We need leaders who will shore it up, not tear it down further.
---

Pretty good read.
 
Our military enjoys broad-based support and good will becase they are seen as the defenders of our liberties. If the military is deployed to enforce domestic order (and ultimately curtail liberties), far fewer people will be willing to "support the troops," and the honor of the services will be tarnished.
 
The Military Police enforce laws in the same ways civilian cops do(not EXACTLY the same), seems like "the force of choice" would be the ideal choice to use in these situations.
 
Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to National Guard troops under state control. It also doesn't apply to purely state forces such as the Texas State Guard.


Also people need to understand the history of the Posse Comitatus Act.

It is NOT intended as a safeguard of rights or something.

It was passed to prevent local sheriffs from calling on the Army to help them track down badguys who had committed a crime and fled town. The Army didn't have the manpower or interest.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Federal government from using troops in a law enforcement role.
 
Police and Military are different types of animals. I know, I've been both.
In dire emergency I could see the army being useful as a help to the Police.
Soldiers are not trained to police and would be more trouble than they'd be worth. Policing can't be learnt in a week or two, soldiering can.
Just my opinion.
 
Black and tans worked so well in Ireland. Not. The idea is stupid. State National Guard troops are still woefully undermanned, underequipped and too many ride in under escort of correctional officers. Yes, inmates convicted and serving time can also serve. The better solution is to revive Civil Defense Auxiliary Police and increase local funding for Police Reserves. FEMA and many other alphabet agencies have funds, instructors and equipment available. Grants, in-kind contributions, logistical support and other assistance is waiting for communities to ask for it. Local residents are better than any out of town troops.
 
Great posts. Esp. Blues Man and Cougar. Is it just that my attenae are tuned in to this sort of thing more, or is it really happening this quickly? It seems that in a few short years, there have been more major blows to the rights of citizens here than ever before. Who's running the show anyway? The zookeepers or the monkey?
 
I think the military can/should be utilized to some degree in assisting law enforcement domestically.

1. In case of a natural disaster, the military could be deployed in force faster than law enforcement. It's part of their readiness standard.

2. The military is gonna train anyway, at taxpayer expense. If their excersizes can benefit the general public at the same time, fine, do it.

3. Other than MP's, military folks should be used to suppliment law enforcement, not replace law enforcement. Military troops should not be enforcing local ordinances, rather stabilizing a given situation, so that law enforcement can function. Looters, and snipers would probably reconsider if confronted with a loaded gunship, or armed patrol.
 
Jayb-
The military is trained to make only one type of split second decision: Shoot or Don't Shoot. They are not trained to enforce laws, nor to act as police officers.

If military are used in any other fashion than Search and Rescue, you will see errors and a backlash in this nation that will rival the 1860's. It's a bad idea; it's a bad precedent and, if passed, it will most certainly be abused by administrations to come.

If local governments cannot act as first responders, they need to be replaced by the people they serve.

I don't wish for the US to ever look like Italy, Ireland or Pre-Reagan Czechoslovakia.

Rich
 
The military is trained to make only one type of split second decision: Shoot or Don't Shoot. They are not trained to enforce laws, nor to act as police officers.
Click to expand...
Rich, have to disagree with you. On the other end of the spectrum of conflict are humanitarian relief operations (very much what is going on down south), security and stabilizations ops, etc. During the year-long work-up cycle, Marines train in these type of missions, and then are tested, evaluated and graded in order to be MEU(SOC) qualified. Much of what the military is doing is right in with that mission, providing security, medical/dental, food/H2O, policing activities, transportation and evacuation, etc.
 
Breacher-
Then you aren't disagreeing with me. I clearly stated that the military has a real role in humanitarian aid, as in S&R. But they are not trained in Police Work; they are not trained to defuse situations; Protective work is not the same as Law Enforcement.

Our military is trained to protect and kill; that is as it should be. They are not trained to "keep the peace", especially where American Citizens are involved. What happens when we use the Military for Domestic Disturbances:
- Waco
- The Bonus Army
- A little fracas that took place between 1861 and 1865
Rich
 
Using Military as civilian law enforcers

Bad juju..
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Best not to confuse the issue. The typical civilian sees only that the military has guns and fails to differentiate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top