Testing The Posse Comitatus Waters
	found on: Washington Times written by Akio, edited by Bartholomew (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 22 Jul 9:54am
		Akio writes "According to Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, "We need to be talking about military assets in anticipation of a crisis event. And, clearly, if you're talking abut using the military, then you should have a discussion about Posse Comitatus. It's not out of the question [that there could someday be a situation] when, in support of civilian authorities, we would give the National Guard or troops arrest ability" in a crisis situation where there may be "severe consequences to a community or region. However, he said such a scenario is "very unlikely." Prior to passing the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, Congress dispatched federal troops to guard election polling places, arrest members of the Ku Klux Klan, and halt the production of illegal moonshine and the fomenting of labor strife. In an interview Sunday, Senator Joe Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that in the current war on terrorism, the Posse Comitatus Act should be re-examined and "has to be amended." Should we be more worried about future terrorist bombings or armed National Guardsmen patrolling the streets with shoot-to-kill orders? How likely is Posse Comitatus to be amended in the current climate of paranoia?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 63 commentsmost: 14 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Why should the Posse Comitatus be amended?   by Bearpaw       at Mon 22 Jul 10:08am score of 3.5 astute     Federal troops can be already be used for internal enforcement during a crisis; it just takes express authorization by Congressional act to permit it. Why should the bar be lowered any? Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Why should the Posse Comitatus be amended?   by sammy baby       at Mon 22 Jul 10:19am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     Because when time is of the essence - say, when you know of a nuclear device in the area - getting "express authorization by Congressional act" is more than a little inconvenient. Biden points out that while military personnel would be permitted to actually disarm the bomb, under the current rules they would be prohibited from shooting or arresting anyone there. - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: Why should the Posse Comitatus be amended?   by Bearpaw       at Mon 22 Jul 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Because when time is of the essence - say, when you know of a nuclear device in the area - getting "express authorization by Congressional act" is more than a little inconvenient. If time is of that much essence, rushing the military in to do law enforcement work would likely do more harm than good. If a particular team of experts is needed to try to defuse your hypothetical nuclear device, they can -- as you admit -- try to do already without breaking any laws. Domestic law enforcement should be left to law enforcement personnel. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Why should the Posse Comitatus be amended?   by wetkarma       at Mon 22 Jul 10:34am score of 5 informative   in reply to comment 5     Actually its "Congress or the president". The president gets his authority from the constitution. If the president is unavailable, authority devolves to the vice-president and so on...see the Constitution of the United States of America for details. Here is the full Act since the writeup does not include it. Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. -Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385 Yep thats it...short eh? Here is what the act means:       * Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947.       * Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them.       * Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law enforcement agency with police powers.       * Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors.       * May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. [9] It is commonly believed, however, that National Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is followed today.       * Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors.       * Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law.       * Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at its facilities.       * Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. [10] Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes. In my mind this attempt is more akin to both Congress and the President trying to shirk their responsibility in the event of a disaster to say "well we never authorized the use of troops". This is the same exact reason why we are in a "War on Terrorism" but have not had congress declare war. For more info on the Posse Comitatus you can go here Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  the war on terrorism   by davidpalter       at Mon 22 Jul 11:28am score of 3.5 astute   in reply to comment 9     That is a very informative comment, but I'm going to argue with your closing remarks. The actual reason why we are in a war on terrorism yet Congress has not declared war, is that declarations of war are made against specific countries or specific military alliances of countries; to declare war on terrorism, or war on drugs, or war on poverty (all of which have been done) is understood to be metaphorical, rather than literal. It expresses the intention to mount a concerted and determined effort which will stop at nothing to achieve its objective, but that effort does not necessarily consist only of military operations. Let us remember, before accusing President Bush of waging war without Congressional authorization, that Congress did pass a resolution, immediately following 9/11, which authorized the President to do anything necessary to deal with the current crisis. That is the equivalent of a declaration of war. This resolution was considered more appropriate than an actual declaration of war, because it was not considered that war would be the entire solution. Indeed, the war on terrorism is a strange mixture of military and policing actions. Terrorists are both at war with the US, and committing crimes against the US; sometimes they appear to be hostile soldiers, and sometimes criminals, and they come in many varieties, both foreign and domestic. They don't come from any one country. They represent an ideology, that of Wahhabism, more than they represent any specific government. Hence, conventional warfare isn't the paradigm under which the war on terrorism operates. This, of course, also relates to the story under discussion. If the US should need to use military personnel to supplement normal law enforcement procedures, it will be because of some catastrophic terrorist threat, erupting on American soil. We don't know that such a thing will happen, but we fear that it will, nor do we know exactly what form it may take. Hence we are trying to prepare for all eventualities. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: the war on terrorism   by wetkarma       at Mon 22 Jul 12:58pm score of 2 obnoxious   in reply to comment 14     That is a very informative comment, but I'm going to argue with your closing remarks. The actual reason why we are in a war on terrorism yet Congress has not declared war, is that declarations of war are made against specific countries or specific military alliances of countries; This is not true. Although one has to be a fairly astute student of history, the United States has declared war before on targets which were neither nations, nor an alliance of nations. I speak of course of President Thomas Jefferson declaring war on the Barbary pirates who were robbing and looting American ships in the early 1800s. In that case America declared war without having a specific nation named as its enemy. The Barbary Pirates are directly analogous to the current group of "evildoers" who seek to harm the interests of the United States. Von Clausewitz stated that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". Without a doubt, I guarantee you that the terrorists believe themselves to be at war with the United States. The fact that we have not identified all combatants is not an obstacle in declaring the true position of the United States as regards our stance on groups which seek to harm it. America's failures in War's such as Korea and Vietnam in my mind primarily stem from our failure to acknowledge that NO! We are NOT engaged in a Police Action and we are NOT engaged in an authorized use of force. We were at war then and should have declared it, and for the same exact reasons we should declare war now. Otherwise there will never be a time where the "authorized use of force" or the "police action" ends. There will only be a gradual slide into the wilfull blindness against the freedom we continue to give up, and our righteous anger will be forgotten in an apathy all to similar to that of Europe. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: the war on terrorism   by arnaut       at Mon 22 Jul 1:40pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 18     For the record, the United States has only declared war as is stipulated in ithe Constitution five times in its history; the affair with the Barbary pirates was not one of them. As this paper shows, the situation bore strong resemblances to today's terrorism, with the offenders using nation-states as a base of operations, while the American forces had to strategically attack in order to both defeat the enemy as well as to install more American-friendly states instead.   The confusion in this latest "war," I think, stems from the fact that most people are comparing it to World War II, the last time America was attacked as viciously, when, as you rightly point out, the proper comparison is with the Barbary affair. In that case, we were not at war, as defined in the Constitution, but we were fighting enemies. Such a distinction would allow the US to fight terrorism without needing to revoke civil liberties in whole or in part. Unfortunately, it seems to be lost on Biden and company. Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  war without end   by davidpalter       at Mon 22 Jul 2:36pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 18     You have posted a very strange comment, wetkarma. The claim that the US failure in both the Korean and Vietnamese Wars was due to a mis-identification of the conflicts as police actions, rather than wars, is wrong for two reasons. First of all, while the US failed in Vietnam, given that South Vietnam was conquered by North Vietnam despite all American efforts, the US did not fail in Korea, given that South Korea remains to this day independent of North Korea, and generally has the kind of government and economy that the US has tried to preserve for it, rather than having become communist. And secondly, the failure in Vietnam had very little to do with the lack of a formal declaration of war, and much more to do with a failure to understand the fundamental weakness of the military dictatorship that the US was propping up in South Vietnam. There were many other problems relating to the Vietnamese War, which was certainly among the greatest disasters of American history. One of those problems was the way it sort of crept up on the US without ever having been actually planned as a war, but that was far from being the primary reason for US failure. I could also point out that IF President Jefferson could declare war on the Barbary pirates, than President Bush has an equal right to declare war on terrorism. Of course, current law stipulates that it is Congress, not the President, which has the power to declare war. But as I have already noted, Bush is acting with full Congressional support in this matter, so it is a non-issue. As for your ultimate concern, that because war was never formally declared, it will therefore persist indefinitely without ever having a formal cease-fire, well, that does seem possible in this case. Some wars don't end. As long as the US is threatened by terrorism, it will need to protect itself from terrorism. No one can predict how long that may be; in all probability, none of us will live to see an end to this process. However, that is in the nature of the problem. If, for example, the US response to the 9/11 terrorism had been a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan, we might already have had a formal peace treaty with the Karzai regime, ending the war with Afghanistan - but we would still be facing a threat of international terrorism. Al Qaeda still functions, & indeed has recently issued new threats. Wahhabism is still alive and well. People still plot the destruction of the US. So to sign a peace treaty with Afghanistan is not enough. It is, of course, very unfortunate that the US, by dint of some 56 years of diplomatic bungling and foreign policy errors, has gotten itself into a position where it is so intensely disliked by such a large segment of the world's population that it is now in grave danger from terrorist threats which cannot be quickly and simply defeated just by winning a campaign in Afghanistan. However, declaring peace will not solve that problem. Difficult problems often require difficult solutions, and in this case, the US & its allies have to remain vigilant against terrorism for as long as necessary, even it should be centuries or millenia into the future. Unending war is not a pleasant prospect, but it is what we are facing, like it or not. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: war without end   by wetkarma       at Mon 22 Jul 5:04pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 22     The claim that the US failure in both the Korean and Vietnamese Wars was due to a mis-identification of the conflicts as police actions, rather than wars, is wrong for two reasons. First of all, while the US failed in Vietnam, given that South Vietnam was conquered by North Vietnam despite all American efforts, the US did not fail in Korea, given that South Korea remains to this day independent of North Korea, and generally has the kind of government and economy that the US has tried to preserve for it, rather than having become communist. Is this one of those zen things where the glass is supposed to be half-full while I'm seeing it as half-empty? The US in my mind never fully committed itself [by any means necessary] to the Vietnam War - it fought a slow process of escalation in which it thought it would point out the inability to obtain victory to the VietCong, never recongnizing its own inability to do the same. The same goes for Korea, how can we say we met our strategic objectives when essentially we were forced to retreat in the face of China? Again my point is simply this: Vietnam and Korea represents sample military actions where we failed to mobilize as a nation and use overwhelming force to achieve our strategic objective. Why? Because we were not "officially" at war, we failed to bring all the resources of our nation to bear to achieve victory. Difficult problems indeed require difficult solutions. But the first step in creating any solution is to identify the problem. By failing to call a spade a spade we're engaged in a process where we've handicapped our ability to present our case succintly to the entire world. In the entire history of the world, no war has ever been unending. Eventually one party does fall. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  wars without ends?   by burrows       at Mon 22 Jul 6:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     I was hoping that one of you would provide a more granular declaration of what the failure in Vietnam was. You have done so, and I thank you. You said: Vietnam and Korea represents sample military actions where we failed to mobilize as a nation and use overwhelming force to achieve our strategic objective. I agree wholeheartedly that we failed to mobilize as a nation and use overwhelming force to achieve our strategic objective, though I do not believe that we failed to achieve our strategic objective. We simply did not achieve it through the use of overwhelming force. I would usually rather get kicked in the eye than agree with Chomsky, but here goes: I think that the "goal" in Vietnam that everyone thinks about the most (defeating the geo-political unification efforts of Ho Chi Minh) was the tactical goal, the strategic goal went a little deeper. The strategic goal was to stop the spread of communism and brewing revolutionary action in Southeast Asia, by preventing a unified Vietnam from acting as an example of communism as a success. It was, in a sense, crucial that we prevent revolutionary action undermining the (weak, though relative) stability in the region, and allowing for communism to take roots with a potential success story. In that strategic sense, I do not believe that Vietnam was a failure, though perhaps tactically, it was, and possibly due to the lack of overwhelming force and an unified approach. This is important, if you apply it (as many of you seem to want to do) to our current situation. Though the parallels are a bit shaky, let us say that the tactical goal of this "war" is the elimination of terrorist organizations that seek to harm the American public in some way. Let us say that the strategic goal of this "war" is to eliminate, in the minds of potential terrorists, the probable perception of the events of 9/11 as successful in the long run. We don't want the terrorist groups involved to be examples or success stories. Due to political and military reasons too numerous to even decently address here, we are unable to use any sort of unilateral overwhelming force in the majority of this "war", and will be unable to achieve our tactical goals, possibly as a result of that fact. However, there is the broader strategic goal at hand, and it's success is, in my humble opinion, entirely possible. I don't have any excellent data to fuel my indication of potential strategic success, it's just a gut feeling right now. That having been said, flame on. "Pure egalitarian societies are like unicorns." -- Jonah Goldberg   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: wars without ends?   by wetkarma       at Mon 22 Jul 7:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     This is important, if you apply it (as many of you seem to want to do) to our current situation. Though the parallels are a bit shaky, let us say that the tactical goal of this "war" is the elimination of terrorist organizations that seek to harm the American public in some way. Let us say that the strategic goal of this "war" is to eliminate, in the minds of potential terrorists, the probable perception of the events of 9/11 as successful in the long run. We don't want the terrorist groups involved to be examples or success stories. Due to political and military reasons too numerous to even decently address here, we are unable to use any sort of unilateral overwhelming force in the majority of this "war", and will be unable to achieve our tactical goals, possibly as a result of that fact. However, there is the broader strategic goal at hand, and it's success is, in my humble opinion, entirely possible. This is a downright solomonic approach in analyzing the problem. I believe however, that it could be flawed. While I can see the possibility (delinated by your logic) of achieving our strategic goal, the tactics which we use to do so still remain crucially important. What good is it if we create in the hearts and minds of all those who wish America ill, if at the same time we have created fear in the hearts and minds of fellow Americans? It seems to me that by shying away from the tactic of declaring war, we create an open ended campaign wherein civil liberties can never be gained, but merely be lost. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: war without end   by eidilon       at Mon 22 Jul 7:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     We were not "officially" at war during the Civil "War" but you'll have a hard time arguing that the lack of a formal declaration of war prevented us from bringing all the resources of our nation to bear to achieve victory. Nevertheless, I do wish that we would drop the "war on X" metaphor. It lets politicians look like they are taking a stance on something without actually commiting themselves.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: war without end   by sr9563       at Mon 22 Jul 8:29pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 29     I don't know if I would say that we failed to use overwhelming force in Vietnam. We dropped more tonnage of bombs than were dropped by all the nations participating in WWII. We destroyed infrastructure, defoliated huge areas, andinstituted a draft. We lost because we were supporting an unpopular regime. It's pretty hard to "defend" a people from themselves. It's your own conscience that is gonna remind you that it's your heart and nobody else's that is gonna judge   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: war without end   by davidpalter       at Tue 23 Jul 5:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     I wouldn't consider the Korean War to have been a failure by the US (and UN) forces, because of the retreat from China. The objective was to protect South Korea, and that was done. If the objective had been to overthrow the communist regime of China, it would have been quite a different war (probably a nuclear war, since the Warsaw Pact would not have tolerated the overthrow of a communist regime). Very few things are LITERALLY unending. It appears that the expansion of the universe is unending. Other than that, all things end. Eventually, when the sun becomes a red giant, the planet Earth will become uninhabitable, and political strife on Earth will end (although perhaps by that time there will be political strife elsewhere in the solar system, farther from the sun). Possibly the war on terrorism will have already ended prior to that point. However, it does promise to be a long struggle. From my personal perspective it might as well be unending, since I will never live to see the end of it. It is true that we need to accurately identify the problem in order to solve it. And we could do more. I still believe, as I have believed for decades, that the Arab-Israeli conflict should not be allowed to fester endlessly, but should be resolved. But in general, the US appears to have a reasonably good grasp on the nature of the conflict. A formal declaration of war is not the missing ingredient that will give US strategy the direction that it needs. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Why should the Posse Comitatus be amended?   by Triode       at Tue 23 Jul 6:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     When I read it, it says that the person who commands the military into domestic police actions is subject to 2 years in jail. Ooooh. Scary. In some states, it's the legal equivalent of having a joint in your pocket.       Therefore, I suggest we leave the law alone, and plan in advance to shoot first and ask questions later. Questions like "How many milliseconds will it take the President to pardon the Joint Chiefs of Staff?" Look at that, I even had it underlined: Breach Hull -> All Die   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: war without end   by wetkarma       at Tue 23 Jul 7:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     I wouldn't consider the Korean War to have been a failure by the US (and UN) forces, because of the retreat from China. The objective was to protect South Korea, and that was done. If the objective had been to overthrow the communist regime of China, it would have been quite a different war (probably a nuclear war, since the Warsaw Pact would not have tolerated the overthrow of a communist regime). If we are going to define "victory" as a return to the status quo after being attacked, leaving the enemy still alive, then by all means we should declare the War on Terrorism over. My point however was that our "limited" police action to drive the NKPA back across the 38th Parallel was an exercise in half-measures. Douglas McArthur, the general in charge at the time, certainly disagreed with the Truman policy of limited war - and eventually got sacked for his disagreement. 50 Years on, the US is still expending resources "guarding" the Korean peninsula. How much resources are we spending guarding Hawaii from Japanese attack? Or England from German agression?. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: war without end   by davidpalter       at Tue 23 Jul 8:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     The fact that there is still a US military presence in Korea, and there is still hostility between North & South Korea, with occasional military incidents, is an indication that the conflict is not over, just as the war on terrorism is not over. However, the Korean War was not a FAILURE (as you originally asserted) just because it is not entirely over, anymore than the war in Afghanistan is a failure just because we have not eradicated all forms or sources of terrorism in the world forever. Sometimes you have to accept a limitted victory. And yes, the Korean War was fought by half measures. The US did not expand the war into WW III. Had they done so, very likely there would not still be unresolved issues between the two Koreas today. More likely, the world would be a radioactive and uninhabitable ruin, in which no one would still be fighting over the relative merits of communism vs. capitalism. Everything considered, I think that the Korean War turned out as well as we might reasonably have hoped. Certainly the strategic situation today is very different from what it was in 1950-1953. The Warsaw Pact is gone, the USSR is gone, and although China remains as an officially communist nuclear power, it doesn't really practice communism even within its own borders, and has no remaining desire to export communist revolution elsewhere on the planet; it seems unlikely that they would again intervene on behalf of North Korea, and certainly no other country would do so. North Korea stands alone, economically weak, starving, and beginning to make its own free-market reforms. So, the result of the Korean War, half a century later, doesn't look so bad. There is progress. We would, of course, like to see more progress. Eventually, we would like to see a re-unification of Korea under a democratic government, much in the way that East and West Germany re-unified after the Cold War. Obviously, it's going to take Korea longer. We can afford to be patient. Unless, of course, North Korea decides to take too active a role in supporting global terrorism, in which case, the next Korean War will be more decisive than the last one. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Read more carefully.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 23 Jul 10:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 48     When I read it, it says that the person who commands the military into domestic police actions is subject to 2 years in jail. Ooooh. Scary. In some states, it's the legal equivalent of having a joint in your pocket. Therefore, I suggest we leave the law alone, and plan in advance to shoot first and ask questions later. Questions like "How many milliseconds will it take the President to pardon the Joint Chiefs of Staff?" The act doesn't forbid using the military in domestic crises--as wetkarma noted above, what it does is forbid anyone but the President or Congress from issuing the orders to do so. Back during Reconstruction, Southern Republican governors and even local officials were permitted to directly contact local federal military commanders in order to seek their assistance. Since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, it has been repeatedly ignored--but it has acted to limit the employment of troops domestically, which most everybody is happy about--including the military. As for the notion that the President would pardon the Joint Chiefs should they decide on their own to employ troops somewhere--don't bet on it. That would be the start of a black diamond of a slippery slope to military dictatorship--which, believe it or not, is not something that the Joint Chiefs really aspire to. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Declaring war doesn't = strategic goals   by rickcolosimo       at Tue 23 Jul 1:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     I understand your desire for more certainty in the War on Terror, and I understand that you believe a declaration of war by Congress on some entity (let's call it Al-Qaeda) or entities will provide the necessary certainty. Wishful thinking. Regardless of the political decisions regarding declarations of war (and the upthread comments regarding lack of an identifiable target), what the war on terror really needs is an objective: a "clearly defined, decisive, and obtainable goal." Objective is one of the nine principles of war taught to Army officers at West Point and OCS. I think that this is the real crux of your argument, and it's one that has been identified, and identified with, by many, many commentators since 9/11. I think that your belief that a formal declaration of war will provide that objective is misplaced. Unfortunately, the objective is lacking because the goal is hard to define, one that requires a great deal of balancing of interests of government and society. How much freedom, IF ANY, are we willing to give up for security? How many deaths, IF ANY, are we willing to tolerate from terrorist activities? Hell, I don't know what the eventual answers to those questions will be. I do know that the answers are not at all correlated with whether there's a War or not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Declaring war doesn't = strategic goals   by wetkarma       at Tue 23 Jul 5:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     Wishful thinking. Regardless of the political decisions regarding declarations of war (and the upthread comments regarding lack of an identifiable target), what the war on terror really needs is an objective: a "clearly defined, decisive, and obtainable goal." [bolding my own] Objective is one of the nine principles of war taught to Army officers at West Point and OCS. You make my very point for me. Certainly declaration of war won't magically make everything better, and the terrorists quake any more in fear. It will however create a structure in which the scope of the endeavour is clearly delineated. "These are the groups we will destroy". The "Axis of Evil" is not the same thing, nor dor is it have the same resonance. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  War doesn't CREATE or DEFINE strategic goals   by rickcolosimo       at Tue 23 Jul 5:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     I wish I could make your point for you. I emphatically disagree that a declaration of war on anyone or anywho or anything will move us any closer to an Objective. To use one of your earlier examples, if we had actually declared war on the North Vietnamese, I don't think that act, standing on its own, would have had any bearing on the conduct of the war. Nothing in a declaration of war says anything about the goals of the war, the conditions for surrender (theirs or ours), or outlines any criteria for success. Now, you may wish to argue that we'd be better prepared to define the Objective of the War on Terror if Congress debates a declaration of war. That might be true, but I would believe that it is the converse that is true instead: it is when we are more sure/more aligned/more in sync about the Objective that we declare war. I think the cause and effect run in the other direction, if at all. Vietnam was a war fought without an Objective. That was the problem, not a roll-call vote.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  All eyes on Biden.   by Akio       at Mon 22 Jul 10:11am score of 1.5 interesting     Anybody have a problem with these pronouncements coming from a Senator who thinks bottled water is drug paraphernalia? monkeyrotica.com: "It's like when they opened the Ark of the Covenant. Except with monkeys."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Oh my god...   by bitter_engineer       at Mon 22 Jul 11:07am score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 2     ...he wants to round up the yuppies! We need to put a stop to this now!!! OK, maybe we can wait until after the first round of purges. But we need to put a stop to this eventually!!! Non estat prandium gratuitum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  It wasn't Biden's idea   by Tashtego       at Mon 22 Jul 1:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Shrub is the one who called on Congress to review the PCA. Tom Ridge, Carl Levin, and Biden have since publicly stated that they agree with Bush that it's a good idea to review the law. Liberals apparently make huge sweeping generalizations without one iota of evidence to back them up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Ignore the man behind the curtain.   by Akio       at Mon 22 Jul 4:55pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 19     I wonder if this really is a Shrub idea, or did one of his Brain Trust come up with it. Who's playing the Kissinger to his Nixon? I keep feeling that this is some sort of coordinated effort to see how much the electorate is willing to put up with in the name of securing the public defense. And if we're going to create a Committee of Public Safety, who's going to be its Robespierre? monkeyrotica.com: "It's like when they opened the Ark of the Covenant. Except with monkeys."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Ignore the man behind the curtain.   by Tashtego       at Mon 22 Jul 7:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Who's playing the Kissinger to his Nixon? I think a more apt comparison might be Don Regan/Ronald Reagan. I think you hit the nail on the head, though. My money would be on either Cheney or Karl Rove. Liberals apparently make huge sweeping generalizations without one iota of evidence to back them up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Ignore the man behind the curtain.   by Triode       at Tue 23 Jul 7:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     A brief list of Shrub's own ideas:       1: I better get more pretzels before the second half...       2: I really ought to send a gift basket to Jeb...       3: Barney's doing that thing again... I wish I were that flexible...       4: I am so smart! I am so smart! S-A-M-R-T!       5: I need to find a couple of frogs, to see if that thing Cheney said about how to boil them really works.... Uh, nope. Carefully orchestrated revocation of basic Constitutional liberties isn't on the list. It's gotta be the work of the Brain Trust. Look at that, I even had it underlined: Breach Hull -> All Die   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Am I laughing or crying?   by Anoplura       at Mon 22 Jul 10:12am score of 2 compelling     The first thing that came to mind when I read this was a conversation I had with a friend few months ago. I believe it was about the handling of the WTO protesters in Quebec. We decided that any government that turns it's military against in own citizens instantly loses all legitimacy. It's kind of like the ultimate vote of non-confidence. Sigh. ...er, um... nevermind then...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Re: Am I laughing or crying?   by nyekulturniy       at Mon 22 Jul 5:33pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 3     We decided that any government that turns it's military against in own citizens instantly loses all legitimacy. It's kind of like the ultimate vote of non-confidence. Sigh. You mean that the U.S. lost legitimacy during the Whiskey Rebellion? Or when the 71st New York was sent from the fields of Gettysburg straight back to New York to deal with the July 1863 draft riots? Or when Federal troops and the Mississippi National Guard, under Federal orders, kept order following the admission of James Meredith to Ole Miss in 1962? There are good precedents for using troops on civilians at times. Sometimes the civilians are way out of line. Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Am I laughing or crying?   by burrows       at Mon 22 Jul 7:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Hrmm, I wonder if the Civil War counts... I'm now engaged in a mental debate about whether one could consider the Southerners involved citizens of the government that acted militarily... "Pure egalitarian societies are like unicorns." -- Jonah Goldberg   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Am I laughing or crying?   by cedar777       at Tue 23 Jul 3:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     We decided that any government that turns it's military against in own citizens instantly loses all legitimacy. It's kind of like the ultimate vote of non-confidence. Sigh. Perhaps your argument could be restated in thusly: A government should no longer be trusted as soon as it turns it's military against UNARMED citizens engaged in non violent protest.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Likely vs. Possible   by joemango       at Mon 22 Jul 10:15am score of 1     Right now, it is not only very unlikely that our armed forces could arrest civilians, it is impossible and very illegal. And it should stay that way. Police agencies with no civilian oversight (i.e. run by the executive branch exclusively) are prime tools for the creation of dictatorships. Don't let them (him) turn the army on us folks! "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Guardsmen   by FatRatBastard       at Mon 22 Jul 10:20am score of 2.5 scholarly     Should we be more worried about future terrorist bombings or armed National Guardsmen patrolling the streets with shoot-to-kill orders? Guardsmen can already patrol the streets (anyone remember Kent State, been to an airport near a natural disaster lately?). They are controlled by-in-large by state gov't. Posse Comitatus applies to federal troops. There's always been talk of using troops to patrol borders to either keep out illegals or drugs. Idiot (IMO) politicos seem to see it as some sort of cure-all for societies ills. Unfortunately this time around, like so many other really stupid ideas, it has a better chance of passing due to our "WoT" (tm). The interesting thing is most rank and file military hate the idea; they're not cops nor do they want to be. They'd rather not waste time and stick to what they're supposed to be doing. Plus none of 'em are very comfortable with the Orwellian / police state overtones that come with it. Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Guardsmen   by Bearpaw       at Mon 22 Jul 10:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     The interesting thing is most rank and file military hate the idea; they're not cops nor do they want to be. Actually, I hear that most(?) officers think it's a dumb idea, too. Some politicians and high-level bureaucrats definitely like the idea, though ... Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Guardsmen   by FatRatBastard       at Mon 22 Jul 10:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Sorry about that... I was thinking about pretty much everyone in the military below the joint chiefs when I said rank and file (doh!). The only reason those at the top like it is it allows them to expand their fiefdomes / increase their budget. Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Actually...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 22 Jul 9:07pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 11     the four-stars are probably no more enthusiastic about getting involved in domestic issues than any other officers--perhaps less so. While the Northern Command might suggest an interest in liberalizing the Posse Comitatus provisions, look who's in the post: an Air Force general, former CINCSPACE, whose primary hobby is missile defense. The JCS and the rest of the regional "combatant commanders" (no more Cinng the Posse Comitatus provisions, look who's in the post: an Air Force general, former CINCSPACE, whose primary hobby is missile defense. The JCS and the rest of the regional "combatant commanders" (no more Cinmould definitely rather concentrate on training for WWIII or Gulf War 2--additional domestic responsibilities are the last thing they want, as they're always complaining that they don't have enough resources to do the jobs they've already got. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Guardsmen   by pyramid termite       at Mon 22 Jul 12:49pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 6     Guardsmen can already patrol the streets (anyone remember Kent State Yes, and with 4 innocent people dead, I think it makes an excellent argument against military involvement in law enforcement. The interesting thing is most rank and file military hate the idea; Yes, and certainly if the people who are to carry out military law enforcement think it's a bad idea, perhaps we should listen to them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Guardsmen   by eduardo       at Mon 22 Jul 6:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Yes, and with 4 innocent people dead, I think it makes an excellent argument against military involvement in law enforcement. So the hundreds/thousands innocent people killed by police (Amadou Diallo, etc) make an argument against cops' involvment in law enforcement? I am not defending the idea. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Guardsmen   by pyramid termite       at Mon 22 Jul 6:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     So the hundreds/thousands innocent people killed by police (Amadou Diallo, etc) make an argument against cops' involvment in law enforcement? Compare the involvement of the Nat'l Guard in cases of civil insurrection to the no. of innocents killed, then compare the involvement of the police in criminal cases to the no. of innocents killed, and I'm sure you would find that the cops have a much better record ... which is not to defend the abuses you've mentioned or the cops that commit them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  On the other hand, federal troops do much better.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 23 Jul 11:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Compare the involvement of the Nat'l Guard in cases of civil insurrection to the no. of innocents killed, then compare the involvement of the police in criminal cases to the no. of innocents killed, and I'm sure you would find that the cops have a much better record ... It's not that I think that federal troops ought to be used more often in domestic interventions, but the historical record shows that in domestic disturbances where federal troops have have been called upon, they been much more effective than local and state agencies at restoring order with minimum loss of life and additional violence. Exactly why that is is a matter of debate. On the one hand, federal troops are typically more disciplined, better trained, and their officers are typically more professional and experienced--thus they're less likely to chamber full metal jackets and go on a shooting spree, like the Michigan National Guard did in Detroit in 1967 prior to the arrival of the 101st Airborne. On the other hand, the impact of the arrival of federal troops must be at least partly psychological: they represent the last option of the President of the United States, and as such serve notice that order is going to be restored, by any means necessary. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Guardsmen   by nyekulturniy       at Wed 24 Jul 3:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Post Kent-State, the National Guard increased the hours spent in riot control training. Furthermore, tactics were changed. Rifles are issued as a last resort; every platoon has a designated shooter, who is judged to be the least inclined to emotional sway; and orders are to shoot to wound, not to kill. Kent State was 22 years ago. The Army Guard is very different now, and the training has served in good stead. I didn't see too many DC Guardsmen shooting people on the streets of Washington after 9/11. Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Not a good idea at all.   by JackH       at Mon 22 Jul 10:35am score of 5 brilliant     I've got a real bad feeling about this. Try as I might, I haven't been able to get too worked up about secret detentions and such. Sure, they're important, but so far, while there's been some very ominous rumblings from the halls of power regarding serious structural changes they'd like to make, it's only been rumblings. However, first with the TIPS program and now with the "amending" (read: emasculation) of Posse Comitatus, we now have the first serious structural changes being proposed to, well, America itself. A lot of commentators have comforted themselves with questionable civil liberties actions from the Bush administration with the notion that they're only temporary, wartime measures. The virtual repeal of Posse Comitatus is emphatically NOT a temporary measure. This will mark a fundamental shift in the relationship between military and civilian power in the United States. The principle of civilian control of the military is undermined severely, and perhaps even more insiduously, the citizenry is now ever more dependent on the goodwill of those in power. One reason why Bush vs. Gore didn't degenerate into, say, a shelling of Congress or multiple Presidents claiming power was the strength of American traditions and law. Even if Bush or Gore had been willing to take it to the streets, American institutions, corrupt and incompetent as they are, were still in the way. These same institutions made it harder for a Nixon to hold on to power. One major reason that America didn't end up a Latin American banana republic was the tradition of subordination of military to civilian power. By the time after the Civil War that we had a large standing military that could have begun to pose a threat to democracy, we were still conscious enough of the need to keep a proper relationship that we were able to pass Posse Comitatus. The evisceration of Posse Comitatus makes the transition from American Republic to American Empire far easier, and far more tempting. Once it's gone, people, it's not coming back. The reason it was passed in the first place was that the U.S. still had enough of a tradition that military power should not be unshackled. America has changed a lot in the past 130 years, though. We now have academics and political analysts openly questioning the precepts of republican government, openly considering citizens as mere consumers, sheep, unable to govern themselves. This is a profoundly antidemocratic move, and is being done by elites who regard their fellow citizens as potential enemies. This has nothing at all to do with al-Qaida. Nothing at all. But if there's any consolation, it's that while senators and academics might regard the military as a tool to use against the peasantry, the military, as has been seen in country after country, doesn't like being regarded as merely a tool. Bringing down the wall of Posse Comitatus is antidemocratic, but I have a feeling that those who are proposing it overestimate their ability to control what they are unleashing. "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Not a good idea at all.   by picador       at Tue 23 Jul 7:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     A lot of commentators have comforted themselves with questionable civil liberties actions from the Bush administration with the notion that they're only temporary, wartime measures. Huh? Since when are we at war? And if you're referring to the "War on Terrorism", how is this in any way "temporary"? After the feast of the egos, everyone leaves hungry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Further reading.   by Courier       at Mon 22 Jul 10:56am score of 2 informative     Some more info on what the military is thinking -- that Posse Comitatus should be somewhat amended just to make it clearer who is in charge and to reduce the distance between the people with authority and the people with the know-how. a carlisle-www.army.mil link The article also notes that since law enforcement and the military typically work under different constraints, they are going to end up confused or bickering, potentially catastrophically. --G This world must be destroyed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: Further reading.   by Custer       at Mon 22 Jul 5:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Thanks, I enjoyed this link very much. I'd like to quote a bit from it: Most disturbing is the tendency to ignore Posse Comitatus restrictions during emergencies (real or simply perceived). Political pressure to "do something" too often results in military involvement in domestic affairs. In the words of another writer, "The fact is that the political interest in stopping drug and alien smuggling is currently greater than the concern as to whether the military is being injected into a traditional civilian law enforcement role contrary to the principles upon which the Posse Comitatus Act was founded." As much as I object to the abuses of military and federal power the Posse Comitatus Act was passed to prevent, the fact is that they still happen anyways. Right or wrong, laws that are routinely ignored should be repealed to lift the "Fog of Legality." In fact, repealing the PCA does not go far enough. If we are indeed willing to let the federal government to do whatever it wants when politicians imagine pressure to "do something", why even bother to have laws restricting the powers of the federal government? Why even have a constitution? We only delude ourselves if we believe we have a "rule of law" and then allow our leaders to violate the law whenever it suits their political goals. So yes, allow our leaders to amend or repeal the PCA. Demand if of them. Next, demand they burn the US Constitution. It only gets in the way of their exercise of the unlimited powers we grant by electing them. Laws are for citizens, not for governments. Right? Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Timeline   by shadarr       at Mon 22 Jul 12:19pm score of 1.5 intriguing     There was a US general who laid out the steps that would be necessary for the US to be transformed from a free democracy to a police state in something like 20 years. I have to wonder how far along this would put them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Timeline   by asthmaticeog       at Mon 22 Jul 12:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     I'd be intersted to know about that in more detail. Got a link? Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Timeline   by shadarr       at Mon 22 Jul 1:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Heh. I couldn't find anything, and I don't even remember which site I originally heard about it on. Sorry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Timeline   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 22 Jul 3:23pm score of 0.5 helpful   in reply to comment 15     Here you go. a carlisle-www.army.mil link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Timeline   by Tessera       at Tue 23 Jul 4:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     From that article: (linked above) About a decade before Fallows' article appeared, Congress initiated the use of "national defense" as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement. Congress concluded that the "rising tide of drugs being smuggled into the United States . . . present[ed] a grave threat to all Americans." Finding the performance of civilian law enforcement agencies in counteracting that threat unsatisfactory, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981.[20] In doing so Congress specifically intended to force reluctant military commanders to actively collaborate in police work.[21] This was a historic change of policy. Since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, the military had distanced itself from law enforcement activities.[22] While the 1981 law did retain certain limits on the legal authority of military personnel, its net effect was to dramatically expand military participation in anti-drug efforts.[23] By 1991 the Department of Defense was spending $1.2 billion on counternarcotics crusades. Air Force surveillance aircraft were sent to track airborne smugglers; Navy ships patrolled the Caribbean looking for drug-laden vessels; and National Guardsmen were searching for marijuana caches near the borders.[24] By 1992 "combatting" drug trafficking was formally declared a "high national security mission."[25] It wasn't too long before 21st-century legislators were calling for more military involvement in police work.[26] Crime seemed out of control. Most disturbing, the incidence of violent crime continued to climb.[27] Americans were horrified and desperate: a third even believed vigilantism could be justified.[28] Rising lawlessness was seen as but another example of the civilian political leadership's inability to fulfill government's most basic duty to ensure public safety.[29] People once again wanted the military to help. Hints of an expanded police function were starting to surface while we were still at the War College. For example, District of Columbia National Guardsmen established a regular military presence in high-crime areas.[30] Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.[31] Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live--Brutus calls them "National Security Zones"--the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup. Looks like he's way ahead of you. He already predicted that this would be one of the big steps towards a military dictatorship. How scary is that?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  On the other hand...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 23 Jul 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Then-Colonel [now headed for his first star] Dunlap's coup piece was a striking piece of writing, and created quite a buzz. After that subsided, though, he was subjected to some historical finger-wagging and came to the conclusion that a military coup in the U.S. would be a highly unlikely event even under the circumstances he had posited. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  the inch is always there, don't give the mile   by joyful immolation       at Mon 22 Jul 3:17pm score of 2.5 astute     the law is already less than airtight, and I oppose loosening it for any reason whatsoever. as far as the reasons why it's currently claimed to be neccesary, I ask you this. If a situation was truly dire enough to absolutely require military intervention- say we had just picked up location info on a truck with a nuke in the back on the highway to hit Chicago's sears tower in 30 minutes and fighter jets were the only thing that could get there, do you think anyone would worry about legal complications? Fuck, no. You'd send in the jets, and there's not a citizen in the country who would hold you accountable for violating the law. That's an example of the urgent and irrefutable need that should be the standard for using the military against US citizens, nothing lower. Just the simple fact that we're talking about arrests rather than "kill him right away before he does Imminent Horrible Deed X" suggests that the situations being thought of are not urgent enough to demand military intervention. Anyone think the terroists are going to outgun the FBI on American soil? Give me a break! The only reason to change the law, rather than simply ignore in times of dire emergency, is to use it in times of less than dire emergency. And in such cases I am absolutely against using the military as law-enforcement. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Good thinking Ridge!   by captainebo       at Mon 22 Jul 3:28pm score of 1.5 compelling     What a great idea! Since there have been so many attacks on American soil since September 11, especially of the sort that would be averted by granting additional powers to the military, Ridge is definitely looking out for the preservation of all those freedoms which the terrorists hate. Ebo, Who still holds fast to his rejection of conspiracy theory... barely "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Natural Guard   by gbv23       at Mon 22 Jul 4:41pm score of 1.5 interesting     Its true that the gov't already uses the Coast Guard and National Guard to enforce laws. Apparently, the state of alabama is offering up a National guard tank unit for any policing that might be needed to maintain homeland security. Be watching for those black helicopters next   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  My Posse Comitatus is on Broadway   by gordon shumway       at Mon 22 Jul 4:51pm score of 1     It isn't a good idea to use the military for law enforcement (there is a difference between arresting someone and blowing up entire cities), but I don't think it would be unreasonable to make an exception for the use of Special Forces in an emergency situation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Re: My Posse Comitatus is on Broadway   by maml       at Tue 23 Jul 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     +1, Mix-a-lot reference! -1, The special forces can sit around with their guns pointed at someone and wait for the FBI to make the arrest, just like any other citizen can restrain someone who has committed a crime. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Rubicon, 10 miles...   by liminal999       at Mon 22 Jul 5:17pm score of 3 astute     If anything was proven definitively in the September 11th attacks, it was the competence of civillian authorities to handle an emergency. I can't picture a scenario in which a bunch of 19 year old farm boys are going to be a better investigative team than a local police force who knows the territory they're working in. I don't mean to knock the National Guard and military unduly, but they are trained for different functions (creation of humanitarian disasters, relief of humanitarian disasters) than a police force. One would think that, given all the far-reaching police powers and funding in the PATRIOT act that federal law enforcement has already received, giving the Green Berets arrest warrants is just overkill at this point. ugly design for beautiful people   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Life Imitates... Star Wars?   by fnbrown       at Mon 22 Jul 5:33pm score of 1.5 clever     Ponder this: A prominent politician assumes power over a great republic after the incumbent party is weakened by a quagmire of bureaucracy. Shortly after taking power, a crisis strikes the republic, and said politician is granted vast, sweeping powers to ensure the safety and protection of the realm. Even though a system of peacekeeping has been in place for countless years, a sense of urgency sways the senate toward granting the executive office unprecedented privileges. Before long, one man commands a military force that not only exists to protect the republic, but rules it with an iron fist. ... so how long before the US Army trades in their new black berets for shiny white stormtrooper helmets??? Romans 10:9-10   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Oh shit.   by deeluxx       at Mon 22 Jul 8:25pm score of 2 witty   in reply to comment 33     So, the fate of the nation lies in the hands of the twin children of the evil overlord? Yikes!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  2004   by sr9563       at Mon 22 Jul 8:34pm score of 2.5 brilliant     This just in...the 2004 presidential elections have been indefinitely suspended. The war on terror cannot be compromised by the instability that would come with a change in administration. Once terrorism is eliminated from the world elections will be reinstated. Meanwhile, please stay home during curfew hours and keep your television on to receive war updates. Thank you for your loyalty. It's your own conscience that is gonna remind you that it's your heart and nobody else's that is gonna judge   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Re: 2004   by LostBoyJim       at Tue 23 Jul 6:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     Double-plus good post there!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Historical capsule for anyone who cares..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 23 Jul 11:09am score of 1.5 scholarly     Yeah, yeah--I've been waiting by the phone for this one... Anyway.. [deep breath] The Posse Comitatus Act, originally enacted in 1878 in response to Southern anger at the use of federal troops in the protection of African-American civil and political rights during the Reconstruction era, has since evolved into an important - if often ignored - foundation of American civil-military relations. Posse comitatus - a fair translation from the Latin is "power of the county" - was a legal concept carried into the American tradition during the colonial era from English common law. Essentially, it stated that when necessary, legal authorities could call forth the entire male citizenry to aid in the execution of the law (the "posses" of Western film fame are a reflection of this tradition). Essentially, the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to restrict the use of the U.S. Army in law enforcement. The posse comitatus provision had been employed by the Republican state governments of the Reconstruction-era South to legitimize the employment of U.S. Army troops to restore and maintain order when white Democrats sought to encroach upon the newly-won political and civil rights of the African-American "freedmen" who constituted the cornerstone of the Southern Republicans' political support. Republican state and local officials, facing often-violent opposition from broad swaths of the Southern white population, resorted to deputizing U.S. Army troops under the posse comitatus provision to enforce laws and apprehend suspects, primarily in cases involving organized intimidation or assaults on African-Americans or Republicans (ironically, the precedent for the use of the Army as a posse comitatus had been set during the 1850s through the use of soldiers to apprehend fugitive slaves). The Grant Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress supported this policy, as actions taken to safeguard the large African-American voting blocs in the former Confederate states helped to preserve Republican control of Congress (See Coakley, 1988, Ch. 7, 13-15, passim.). Amid the political scandals and economic troubles of Grant's second term, however, Northern Republicans began to lose their enthusiasm - and the support of Northern voters - for maintaining the continued subjugation of the increasingly restive Southern Democrats. One by one, Democratic "Redeemer" governments reestablished control over the former Confederate states. When the results of the 1876 presidential election contested between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden fell into dispute, a dangerous political crisis ensued; widespread political violence, even a return to civil war, seemed imminent. The crisis was resolved through the "Compromise of 1877," the central element of which entailed Democrats acquiesence to the elevation of Hayes to the Presidency in return for Republican abandonment of the remaining Southern Republican governments (on the end of Reconstruction, see Foner, 1988, Chapter 12, passim. For a more in-depth look at the Compromise of 1877, see Woodward, 1966). In the absence of federal support for blacks and Republicans, white Democrats quickly reestablished control in the South, resorting to violence and intimidation when necessary without fear of censure from sympathetic courts or law enforcement agencies. As the last Southern states were "redeemed," Democratic Congressmen pushed through the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 in an effort to ensure that the Army would not be used against them in the future. The consequence was that employing the Army to enforce the law would in the future be specifically restricted: From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385). While the interest of the drafters of the Posse Comitatus Act in giving free rein to Southern white efforts to restore white supremacy in the former Confederate states casts a pall over the subsequent history of the law, by restricting the employment of the U.S. military in domestic conflicts the act nonetheless serves an important function. While presidents in the years since 1878 have repeatedly employed military forces to restore order, the Posse Comitatus Act has generally acted to ensure that decisions to employ military force are made by the President rather than by state or local officials or Army officers in the field. In so doing, the Posse Comitatus Act has encouraged civilian and military leaders to exercise restraint in the domestic employment of federal military forces (see Kohn, 1991, 175-192; Coakley, 1988, 342-348). References and further reading: Coakley, Robert W. The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1988. Kohn, Richard H., ed. The United Stat read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  Posse Comitatus   by littleegypt       at Tue 23 Jul 1:39pm score of 1     During the Iran-Contra hearings Oliver North, that incomparable patriot, testified re an "off the shelf" policy at the CIA. This policy would allow for the declaration of martial law and the disbanding of congress, among other minor details. There were several criteria which would allow the implementation of this policy, including an attack on the United States by a foreign country. I'm sure the same policy is still on the shelf, and provoking an attack by Hussein will be excuse enough. Frankly, the last "election" would seem to indicate that democracy is defunct anyway. To quote Hunter S., "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  A little clarification-FEMA and continuity of govt   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 23 Jul 5:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     It wasn't the CIA, but the incident you mention does have some basis in fact. I'm inclined to think the authors of this piece are a little overwrought, but they do present a pretty good overview of the "continuity of government" plans of Muller & Scully's favorite whipping boy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]