Northern Command General Endorses Posse Comitatus Review

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday, July 22, 2002 | NewsMax.com

[Van Jenerette]

To me, as a retired military officer with over 23-years of active service, this option of the deployment of American troops inside of America was never in the cards.

We had a simple rule: Never point your weapons in the direction of 'friendlys.' So by simple extension, we as a military kept our weapons 'pointed' outside of our borders. Could it be that there may be some people view the American Citizens as 'Non-Friendly Personnel?'

As a college professor of political science, my view is once again pretty simplistic: The founding father's kept up the cadence in the early years of this Republic that a standing Federal Military on American soil was a threat to the peoples liberty, and the soveriegn rights of the States. If I accept the founders position on 'All men being created equal...with rights granted by natures God' then I have to believe that they were quite correct in this respect also.

Our Federal Military Weapons should be 'pointed' outside of our borders. Period.

[taaminator]

At least the Military has been ready for this for almost ten years, now.

Question 46. The stated scenario

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this p eriod, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

No opinion Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

The Responses

Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.

The outcome of the survey was as follows:

Strongly disagree 127 42.33%

Disagree 58 19.33%

Agree 56 18.67%

Strongly agree 23 07.67%

No opinion 36 12.00%

Total: 300 100.00%


Summary of the responses to question 46.

The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey qu estions; "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks on their response or written comments in the margin space."

Is there a problem here?

What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire.

In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily organized into a unit that would obey such orders.

[gieriscm]

AFAIK the only exemption to Posse Comitatus is when nuclear materials are involved. So, if there are terrorists in CONUS who are attempting to set of a "dirty nuke" bomb, the military can intervene here.

The only other exemptions I'd make are if biological or chemical weapons are involved, and that is only because the military has expertise that local LE and FD's often lack.

Otherwise, leave the cops and sheriffs responsible for law enforcement.

[Don Myers]

I certainly hope that we never get to the point where we have troops stationed on street corners. They can guard our borders. I have no problem with that. But, when American troops assume police authority within the US, we will be in deep trouble. And, this is one time when the terrorists will have won.