Having already wrecked a legendary American city, Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law;.that principle, enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act, is that when it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder.

In his televised address on September 15, President Bush declared that "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces--the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." Senator John Warner (R-Va.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, goes further. In the wake of Katrina, he's suggested weakening Posse Comitatus, the longstanding federal law that restricts the government's ability to use the U.S. military as a police force. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita called Posse Comitatus a "very archaic" law that hampers the president's ability to respond to a crisis.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5043

9/25/2005 8:04:10 AM

President Bush should have put a bounty on hurricane katrina's head. Dead or Alive

9/25/2005 8:09:26 AM

Yeah, well the President has seen fit to increase government and intrude in a lot of places. I see where he is going with it, since the military is a very well trained force for disasters like this. I'd prefer him to leave it to the National Guards of the States since that is their job. Why can't we have a fiscal conservative run for President....

[Edited on September 25, 2005 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ]

9/25/2005 9:41:29 AM

What about a fiscal conservative DEMOCRAT as president. Thanks to a republican congress, such a system just might work for the benefit of the nation.

9/25/2005 10:06:26 AM

I have never heard of a democrat that doesn't want to spend money... and rarely have I elected a republican who wont.

9/25/2005 10:12:54 AM

^^ By definition, not a democrat.

But i could definately go for a fiscal conservative liberal-minded president about now...although a canidate definately isn't springing to mind. Cept me, but i'm a girl and i'm fugly and i'm only 21....no presidency here.

9/25/2005 10:15:16 AM

9/25/2005 11:22:24 AM

I was afraid of this when the belly-aching began that the federal government should've stepped over Blanco's Louisiana government.

Quote :

"I'd prefer him to leave it to the National Guards of the States since that is their job. "

You need to convince the rest of the country of this. Unfortunately, many people feel that states rights are passe.

9/25/2005 11:49:48 AM

Perhaps, but a conservative former texas governor should know better than to listen to the public on this matter!

9/25/2005 12:09:42 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps, but a conservative former texas governor every last government employee, elected or not, should know better than to listen to the public on this matter!"

[Edited on September 25, 2005 at 12:18 PM. Reason : s, not u]

9/25/2005 12:17:15 PM

Quote :

"Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law;.that principle, enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act, is that when it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder."

Posse Comitatus is not a fundamental principle of American law. It's only been around since the late 19th century; I'd really like to see the part of the Constitution that makes it a "fundamental principle."

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Posse Comitatus is basically, and has always been, the War Powers Act of the 19th century.

Which part of the following is unclear to you?

Quote :

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"

Now, what I'd like to know is -- which part of "shall be Commander in Chief" means:

* commander-in-chief, unless Congress says so
* commander-in-chief, unless the military is enforcing domestic law
* commander-in-chief, unless civil libertarians whine shrilly and weep and gnash their collective teeth

No. I think the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, wherein he can basically tell the military to do what he wants it to do. Quite obviously the Congress acts as a check on the President's power, but not on his constitutional role--that's way out of bounds.

Put another way:

If we don't trust the President to command the military wisely in domestic law enforcement, WHY ON EARTH DO WE TRUST HIM TO WAGE FOREIGN WARS WITH IT?

9/25/2005 3:00:47 PM

^ I don't

9/25/2005 3:05:31 PM

Quote :

"If we don't trust the President to command the military wisely in domestic law enforcement, WHY ON EARTH DO WE TRUST HIM TO WAGE FOREIGN WARS WITH IT?"

because in true american spirit, we dont give a damn about other people

9/25/2005 3:05:47 PM

^

Well, the tongue-in-cheek point is well-taken, but it is OUR people that we send over.

9/25/2005 3:07:51 PM

yea, but our people are the best people

so it makes it easier to digest

9/25/2005 3:16:19 PM

What is the difference? If what you say is correct, Congress decided back in the 19th century to restrict the Presidents power to operate within the US, it is their role to do so.

Now, you are right on one account, the President can send his troops to Texas, but in doing so Congress will refuse to pay for their equipment and salaries. If the federal troops want to go fight floods in NO for free in the name of their President, so be it.

9/25/2005 3:24:09 PM

^

Except that the Congress has NO Constitutional power to restrict the President's will to operate within the U.S. It has none. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

In fact, they also have NO Constitutional power to restrict his will to operate anywhere, at any time.

He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Period. If it is so ordered of the military, it will (and should) be done.

You are correct that the Congress has the power of the purse, but that's in no way relevant to my point. In fact, I already conceded that when I said "the Congress acts as a check on the President's power, but not on his constitutional role."

Whether the Congress--especially a Republican Congress--has any real power over the purse, is not a Constitutional question, it's a political one. I think it's obvious which way it'd swing in the case of George W. Bush.

[Edited on September 25, 2005 at 4:06 PM. Reason : foo]

9/25/2005 4:05:29 PM

Armies don't move without money. As such, before invading anything, the President usually needs a bill or two passed through congress to pay for it.

9/25/2005 5:21:08 PM

^exactly. while the president is commander-in-chief, giving him full control of the military is both short-sighted and ignorant. over and over and over again throughout history, when power is too centralized, corruption occurs.

this is why congress can take all the money from the armed forces if they see fit.

9/25/2005 6:58:33 PM

If I reason it correctly, the Congress can sell the armed forces right out from under the President if it deems necessary to do so.

[Edited on September 25, 2005 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2005 8:52:27 PM

^^

The point is that power isn't too centralized. The President is a civilian leader who's elected by the people every four years, he isn't some Major General who made it up through the ranks and has a lifetime post.

And you'll take note that while the President could use the military for law enforcement without Posse Comitatus, the actual definition of the law comes from Congress, the courts, and the state legislatures. If he used it for some unlawful purpose, that would be a High Crime (probably bordering on treason), for which he could be prosecuted and impeached.

Hence: the President is subject to civil authority, not martial authority. By definition, if the commander of the military were subject to martial law, he could simply change martial law to exclude himself.

See, the Founders were thinking when they came up with this system. That would be why they didn't include a Posse Comitatus article in the Constitution. Gee...

9/25/2005 10:45:02 PM

I can't believe LoneSnark started this thread

it seems like such liberal whining

9/26/2005 2:50:43 AM

Really? It strikes me as rather conservative to be railing in favor of states rights again an evil nanny state hoping to protect us all against our will.

9/26/2005 12:48:09 PM

HEY BUSH IT TOOK YOU TOO LONG TO RESPOND TO THE HURRICANE I HATE YOU

HEY BUSH THE MILITARY YOU SENT TO HELP OUT WITH THE HURRICANE SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT, NOT A FIRST RESPONDER I HATE YOU

9/26/2005 1:03:52 PM

The Military should not become the President's personal green police.

9/26/2005 1:13:55 PM

i always pictured bush as the pig Napoleon, but now i guess its going to come true



(its an animal farm reference)

9/26/2005 1:52:49 PM

Quote :

"Really? It strikes me as rather conservative to be railing in favor of states rights again an evil nanny state hoping to protect us all against our will."

Libertarian, sure, but that's far cry from present day conservatives. But I guess I should call 'em Neo-cons or something...

9/26/2005 3:17:57 PM

Neo-Cons, as I understand it, are a tiny minority of Jewish conservatives from the North Eastern United States. As such, there are few Neo-Cons down here.

9/26/2005 5:07:17 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/page404.html

Quote :

"Military Favors a Homeland Command Forces May Shift To Patrolling U.S. By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 21, 2001; Page A01 The nation's top military authorities favor appointing a four-star commander to coordinate federal troops used in homeland defense, part of a broad reorganization that Pentagon officials say could change some forces' primary mission from waging war overseas to patrolling at home. Although the Pentagon has regional commanders in chief, known as CINCs, who are responsible for Europe, the Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and South Asia, none exists for managing the deployment of U.S. forces in the United States. Creating one now, military officials say, would clarify the chain of command for those troops. Any extensive use of federal troops on U.S. soil would come despite a traditional aversion to -- and legal limits on -- the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But the Sept. 11 attacks and the Bush administration's declared war on terrorism have blurred the distinction between foreign wars and domestic crimes and prompted a rethinking of the Pentagon's command structure and force assignments. "

They've been wanting to do this for some time now. After the next big "terrorist" attack, don't be surprised if soldiers are patrolling your neighborhood and walking down your streets, house to house to confiscate firearms and "look for terrorists" (ie, those who resist martial law and confiscation of their firearms).

9/28/2005 9:10:25 AM

Yea, sure, my brother is in the Army and he'd quickly turn his guns on his commanders if he received such an order.

9/28/2005 10:41:45 AM

tell him good luck with that

walter reed is so pretty this time of year

9/28/2005 10:57:33 AM

While many Americans are completely unaware of this, there are presently many FOREIGN troops in the United States. Many are supposedly here for "training" or participating in UN and other various "exercises." While many U.S. troops would be unwilling to confiscate guns from Americans and shoot American citizens, foreign troops would have no problem doing that.

Don't forget that Mexican troops participated in the Katrina "relief effort" just recently. Also, after 9/11 NATO aircraft patrolled U.S. airspace.

9/28/2005 11:08:07 AM

Detroit Police Dept. To Purchase Assault Tank
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5030391/detail.html

Quote :

"City's Intended Purchase Of Assault Tank Comes Under Fire Council Will Vote On Issue Wednesday September 28, 2005 It's a huge tank with a huge price tag. The Detroit Police department is ready to make a big purchase on a crime-fighting vehicle despite laying off dozens of officers. It's an armored urban assault vehicle that would be used in drug raids and will cost the department $743,000. The vehicle, called "The General," can cross rivers and protect its passengers from explosive land mines. It has 20 wheels and is equipped with periscopes. For drug assaults, the vehicle has massive fire power and can knock down doors, Local 4 reported."

9/30/2005 9:49:23 AM

Quote :

"there are presently many FOREIGN troops in the United States. Many are supposedly here for "training" or participating in UN and other various "exercises." While many U.S. troops would be unwilling to confiscate guns from Americans and shoot American citizens, foreign troops would have no problem doing that."

That made me giggle

9/30/2005 10:07:11 AM

if there is another terror attack on US soil, much to the same effects of 9/11, then i foresee this becoming a fact, the military will be used as law enforcement.

9/30/2005 10:08:04 AM

wasn't their a movie that NYC went into martial law after some terrorists attempted to take over the city.

9/30/2005 10:25:37 AM

From the Libertarian Cato Institute:

Quote :

"Americans have long been wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace at home. Despite that reluctance, top figures in Congress and the Bush administration have proposed weakening the Posse Comitatus Act, the 126-year-old statute that restricts the government’s ability to use the U.S. military as a police force. Calls abound for bringing military resources to bear in areas ranging from border control to domestic surveillance. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), head of the Armed Services Committee, has said that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus may have had its day. And Gen. Ralph E. Eberhardt, the head of the new Northern Command, which directs all military forces within North America, said, ‘‘We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus . . . if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people.’’ The Posse Comitatus Act What is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), and does it ‘‘tie the hands’’ of the government in protecting the American people? Passed in 1878, the PCA forbids law enforcement officials from employing the U.S.military to ‘‘execute the laws.’’ The rationale behind the act, as one federal court has explained, is that ‘‘military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation. The Posse Comitatus statute is intended to meet that danger.’’ But the PCA is not a total prohibition on domestic use of the military, and it hardly ties the government’s hands with regard to any legitimate use of the military on the home front. First, the act applies only to troops that are acting under federal command. It does not forbid state governors from using the National Guard to perform policing duties. The troops stationed in the nation’s airports after September 11, 2001, were operating under the command of the state governors, and therefore the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply. Second, the courts have generally held that only hands-on policing violates the act. That means that arresting people, searching them, interrogating them, restricting their movement, and other coercive activities are proscribed. But if the Army provides training or equipment to domestic authorities, it’s not violating the act. Third, Congress can pass exceptions to the law, and it has done so repeatedly. For example, there are statutes on the books that allow the military to act in an emergency situation involving weapons of mass destruction. Finally, the courts recognize a ‘‘military purpose exception’’ to the PCA even when there is no specific statute in place allowing the use of the military. So if a latter-day Pancho Villa invades California, we don’t have to send in state and local police; instead, the Army can respond. The same analysis applies to the fighter jets patrolling American skies for hijacked jetliners after 9/11. They were there to defend our cities against a military-style attack, and no one has suggested that was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clearly then, the Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t tie the government’s hands. What the law does is reaffirm the principle that a free country relies on civilian peace officers to keep the peace. We call the troops in only as a last resort in extraordinary circumstances. And that is entirely appropriate."

9/30/2005 10:26:16 AM

yeah, it was a stupid movie/idea then and still is now.

9/30/2005 10:27:13 AM

Quote :

"wasn't their a movie that NYC went into martial law after some terrorists attempted to take over the city."

bruce willis and denzel washington were in it. its called "The Siege"

9/30/2005 10:28:30 AM

How I yearn for the days when Republicans stood for states rights and fiscal responsibility.

9/30/2005 1:18:21 PM

^ Me too... What we need is another Democratic President and a larger majority in the House and Senate.

9/30/2005 1:21:28 PM