Posted on 07/22/2002 6:37:23 AM PDT by robowombat
Biden backs letting soldiers arrest civilians Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 7/22/2002
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, yesterday strongly endorsed giving soldiers the power to arrest American civilians. Interviewed yesterday on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the military from exercising police powers in this country, should be re-examined and "has to be amended."
Such a change will happen soon, he said.
However, Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, said in several appearances on political talk shows yesterday that the Biden proposal should be considered but that he thinks it's "very unlikely" such a change will be made.
The Biden proposal and the Ridge "knockdown" — not necessarily a "knockout" — may have been coordinated and calculated to measure public reaction. Mr. Ridge grew more emphatic later in the day in his view that military authorities should not have such powers of arrest over civilians. Mr. Biden said that "we're not talking about general police power, changing the idea that you would have your local National Guard with arrest power like your local policeman." But "it's not very realistic" that, under the current law, soldiers with knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, who might be checking out the discovery of a terrorist weapon in the United States, would "not be able to exercise the same power a police officer would in dealing with that situation." "Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be able to shoot to kill, if they were approaching the weapon," nor could they arrest any suspects. Mr. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhardt, President Bush's choice to lead the military's new Northern Command, told the New York Times that he favors changes in existing law to give increased domestic powers to the military to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people," said Gen. Eberhardt, whose command's primary goal is domestic security, in a dispatch published yesterday in the newspaper.
The New York Times reported that the general's opinion is shared by other senior military officials and represents a "shift in thinking" at the Pentagon, which historically has resisted involvement in domestic law enforcement.
The White House has instructed lawyers at the departments of Defense and Justice to analyze federal laws on the books that restrict the military's role in law enforcement on U.S. shores, the paper reported. Congress assigned to federal troops a large role in law enforcement in the 11 Confederate states after the Civil War, tasks such as guarding election polling places, arresting members of the Ku Klux Klan, and halting the production of illegal moonshine and the fomenting of labor strife. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted in 1878 to eliminate military enforcement of the civil law, effectively ending Reconstruction.
Mr. Biden recalled that in 1995 he and Sen. Sam Nunn, Georgia Democrat, after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, introduced legislation that would have "moderately altered" the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling the military to intervene in incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Biden said some lawmakers are likely to be more receptive to repealing the 1878 act now than they were before September 11.
On Fox, Mr. Ridge called Gen. Eberhardt's remarks about the need for such a review "very appropriate." "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."
In a separate interview on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," Mr. Ridge was even more emphatic that the discussion is an academic one. "There's been absolutely no discussion with regard to giving military authorities the ability to arrest in their support of civilian authorities." Asked whether he believes the military should have the power to arrest U.S. citizens, he replied: "No."
Mr. Ridge said he could imagine, hypothetically, the secretaries of defense and homeland security broaching the possibility of changing the 1878 act at some future meeting. "That does not mean that it will ever be used or the discussion will conclude that it even should be used," he said. "I think that generally goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest."
On "Late Edition," Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Governmental Affairs Committee, said he believes military troops could be useful for tasks such as "surveillance along the borders thousands of miles that are very difficult for law enforcement to deal with." "It would be against our traditional Posse Comitatus principles. But it might be an idea whose time has come."
But Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Posse Comitatus Act is a "solid law" that "has served us well." He said: "We should not assume that we're going to have to change it. On the other hand, I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful than they've been up to now" in providing training, equipment and other assistance in disaster situations. But the military should not be arresting people.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Smoke and mirror BULLSPLATTER!!
These people would have you believe that a member of the armed forces first on the scene of possible mass destruction would not do their best and utmost to prevent such an occurrence except after ordered to? These soldiers are I assume citizens of these states and have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones under our constitution. I didn't think wearing a uniform negated that. IMO, any soldier that did not do his best to prevent such an attack would be culpable at worst and subject to war crimes; failing to do their duties (protect the homeland and its citizens)
But maybe I don't understand the scope of the militaries duties.
However I see no need to eliminate Posse Comitatus. Just because jihadis attack us why must extreme measure be taken against citizens.
Perhaps govt officals know that have not the will to close the illegal alien loophole because of political correctness. So they will try to keep safety by placing harsh measures on the citizens, which seem for the those same govt officals more palatable than securing the borders.
Many, many common citizens will support the initiative. And, people wonder how Nazi Germany got started.
Congress assigned to federal troops a large role in law enforcement in the 11 Confederate states after the Civil War, tasks such as guarding election polling places, arresting members of the Ku Klux Klan
They enforced "hate crimes".
and halting the production of illegal moonshine
And fought a "war on drugs".
and the fomenting of labor strife.
And involved themselves in labor disputes.
Well, aren't those just great! Which such a < cough > restrained role the last time the military had arrest powers, we certainly won't expect them to expand their use this time.
Biden is certainly mistaken. In a flood the National Guard (the state's military) is called out to prevent looting. If a Marine urban warfare team was needed to take down some terrorists in a US city they could do that since Posse Comitatus applies to citizens NOT enemy combatants and infilitrators.
Some people in govt are confused about the difference between a citizen and people whose residence is another country. They think those groups are the same.
I don't believe this for one second. In the situation you describe, the military fires first and consults the lawyers later.
Why does the military need the power to Arrest Civilians in order to fire upon Arab terrorists, who are (by the way) foreign combatants in wartime? This excuse just doesn't work.
No, they will only be allowed to shoot them for violating their oath of office.
;-)
IMO, more "smoke and mirror BULLSPLATTER".
Why do you think these law enforcement activities conducted by the Union Army were bad? If the Yankee Army had stuck around for a few more decades, then perhaps blacks in large areas of the south wouldn't have had to wait until the 1960's to be able to vote. As for the KKK, what do you have against arresting those who terrorized and murdered innocent people?
That's a bunch of nonsense. If a private citizen showed up, saw a terrorist attempting to detonate a suitcase bomb and blew him away, I seriously doubt any charges would be filed.
We don't need any special law giving these powers to the military.
Just substitute 'soldier' for civilian in my example, and there is no question that either would have acted appropriately.
....B-b-b wait robowombat......I thought it was the conservatives in this country who are the facists. At least that's what CNN says.
Anybody have doubts as to what America would look like today if Al Gore and his Democrat hacks were running the country?
IMO, more "smoke and mirror BULLSPLATTER".
Bullspatter or not, that's why the military is not permitted to be involved in the detention and arrest of illegals on our borders. Would you like to see that change? I know I would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.