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.
If we listened to the Rep from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney (D), any security measure concieved for the welfare and safety of the American public will be inherently biased and racist against racial minorities. And this abuse represents a greater harm than what the measures are meant to cure. Simply put, I don't buy this race baiting agenda-- this attitude serves to facilitate Arab-backed terrorism against our Freedoms and Country.
Hogwash. The genie was out for the first 100 years or so our Republic. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? Posse Comitatus was enacted after the Civil War. Some laws and Constitutional ammendments (i.e., born here = citizen) have outlive their usefulness
Because they are activities that the military has no place taking part in, ever. The role of the military is to kill people and break things. Their sole purpose is supposed to be to repel foreign attacks. The founders warned us against a standing army. If modern warfare compels us to have one anyway, we must have a strict prohibition against law enforcement by military. I would even go so far as to amend the Constitution to prohibit their use.
Chasing down moonshiners, enforcing hate crimes, and strike busting have nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with martial law.
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.
You may not have noticed, but in most countries the army interferes with free elections. This typically results in civil war. Take Zimbabwe for example. Involving the military in domestic elections is a huge risk. If the wrong people are ever in power, tyranny results.
As for the KKK, what do you have against arresting those who terrorized and murdered innocent people?
I have nothing against them being arrested. I have a HUGE problem with the military arresting them. That is a job for civilian police.
Nice to know you care about southerners living in a police state, the klan was started as a vigilante group against "Yankees" terrorizing southerners.
In a war, the military does not "arrest" the enemy. The enemy is "captured". Also, in a war, the military is allowed to shoot the enemy without without giving him a fair trial or reading him his Miranda rights.
As a serious student of history, yes, I occasionally have taken notice of such trends. However, we are not most countries and never have been. You lose credibility when you equate Mugabe's henchmen with Union soldiers.
I said "detained" not "arrest", there is a difference. Semantics aside I hope our military would shoot first and seek the proper authorization later, as a previous poster suggested.
There's a reason for that. It didn't happen by mistake, or because the American people are somehow inherently different from the rest of humanity. The difference between our nation and others is our tradition of liberty. It is only our conscious effort to jealously guard freedom that is responsible for the difference between us and them.
Decisions have consequences. Other countries have decided to use military as law enforcement. They are known as banana republics. We have gone the other way, and are known as a free country. We aren't somehow magically special that we can behave like other police states and not become one. We're human just like everyone else. When we make the same decisions oppressive countries have made, we will get the same results they got. Cause and effect.
Posse Comitatus was intended to prevent use of our military against civilians. The abuse of government power by using military as a police force against POLITICAL enemies should always be enforced.
Use of military troops to guard borders, attack enemies within our country, investigate and arrest terrorists, etc., are not the intention of PC, and Leahy and his ilk are blowing smoke.
Question - who would be prez today if X42 was not barred from using fed troops against his domestic enemies?
Rather they're in full agreement with each other, but totally true
Any bets on a veto
Not from me, but maybe you could get one of the hormonally challenged airheads on the "day in the life of George Bush" thread to bet with you :-)
So one DOES NOT have to be an American citizen to join the US military?
http://www.shusterman.com/siu.html#4
Shusterman's Immigration Update July 2002
4. Executive Order Expedites Military Naturalization
On July 3, President Bush signed an Executive Order 13269 which waives the normal residency and physical presence requirements for certain non-citizens serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is estimated that there are over 15,000 men and women who are affected by this order. While non-citizens are eligible to enlist in the military, only U.S. citizens can be promoted to commissioned or warrant officers, or serve in special warfare programs such as the Navy SEALs.On July 4, the President proclaimed to a crowd that "thousands of our men and women in uniform were born in other countries and now spend each day in honorable service to their adopted land. Many of them are still waiting for the chance to become American citizens."
Under the order, anyone with active-duty service in the military since September 11, 2001 is eligible to apply for naturalization provided that they enlisted, or re-enlisted, in the U.S. or in certain other designated places.
Importantly, it is not necessary that the applicant still be in the military, or that he/she be a permanent resident of the United States. It is even possible to naturalize if the person is illegally present in the U.S.
Applicants under the Executive Order (issued pursuant to §329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) must comply with other naturalization requirements such as the English and history/government examinations, and must demonstrate that they are persons of good moral character.
When I served as an INS Citizenship Attorney in the late 1970s, we recommended hundreds of Vietnam veterans for naturalization under a similar Executive Order, and they were sworn-in as U.S. citizens. The fact that many of these veterans had enlisted illegally did not bar them from naturalization as long as the military supported their applications. I can not recall a single instance where the military did not do so.
Significantly, President Bush's order does not contain an expiration date. A non-citizen who joins the military today can immediately apply for naturalization. Also, it is not required that the applicant be involved in combat or in the war against terrorism.
!Here's the fast track to citizenship amigo! Sign on the line, get your uniform and rifle, and in no time you can be pulling highway checkpoint duty, searching gringos for illegal weapons.
Just follow orders Pepe, and !Ay Caramba!
!It's Even easier than crossing the border was!
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.