Posted on 07/24/2002 10:14:53 AM PDT by habaes corpussel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite the specter of new attacks on the United States, the U.S. military opposes any move to give civilian police powers to the armed forces to protect Americans, a top Army general said on Wednesday.
Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane spoke as the government began to examine possible changes in an 1878 "posse comitatus" law that forbids the military from making arrests and undertaking other law enforcement duties except in dire emergencies.
"We don't see any reason to change," the Army's No. two ranking officer told reporters, adding that the armed forces would continue to operate in an unarmed supporting role for civilian agencies such as airport and border security.
"I think military leaders have always resisted policing the American people. We have police forces that are appropriately trained to do that. ... We have always supported that law for obvious reasons," Keane said in response to questions at a meeting with defense writers.
But a sweeping homeland security plan proposed by President Bush last week calls for a review of whether domestic security would be increased by greater involvement of troops and how it could be done after the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America that killed more than 3,000 people.
Both conservative and liberal members of Congress -- and most Americans, according to past polls -- have traditionally supported the historic separation between police and the military in the United States.
COMMENTS ECHO RUMSFELD
Keane's comments on Wednesday echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Pentagon briefing this week.
Both said they saw no reason to change the law despite concerns among Americans that the country be adequately protected against any repeat of the attacks using airliners hijacked by radical Muslim guerrillas of the al Qaeda network.
"I don't think anyone should hold their breath waiting for changes in posse comitatus," Rumsfeld told reporters.
But the secretary said any final decision would rest with Bush and Congress.
Independent defense and political analysts have said there is little likelihood that U.S. troops would begin carrying handcuffs and standing armed on street corners except in a national emergency.
But Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this week that Washington needed to review laws governing the military to ensure flexible response to "terrorism threats" facing the United States.
Keane warned, however, that the nation must not become too dependent on the use of part-time National Guard troops for domestic duties because they had a dual role in protecting the country abroad and at home.
"Our view, the Army's view, is that homeland security is clearly a very important mission," he said. "But as it pertains to the guard, we see the guard being able to do primary war-fighting missions as well as homeland security.
"We don't see the guard just having a singular mission of homeland security."
I don't want the military to have Police powers either. However I'm not opposed to using the military to patrol the U.S. Mexico border.
A military Coup? Your right the Military is way to Conservative for getting involved in police powers. They are also too conservative for a coup. No I think you would see Military leaders resigning before attempting a coup.
Once the military becomes overtly involved in the political process, it becomes a partisan of one side or the other. It could never represent the whole people in the defense of the Constitution once it became a partisan.
General Washington laid down his commission before the Congress for a good reason. He understood the temptation of Arms and Power, and was wise to resist it.
The Army continues to follow his example to their great credit.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
We should combine a Border Guard and the Coast Guard, have a draft that requires service for 1.5 years from every young american. A "GI" bill would accompany that service.
They will be trained in police action relevant to border patrol. They will be an internal border police and not our military. Our military should focus on and train on "real war" -- high intensity, mid intensity, low intensity, etc.
The heavy military should only be used internally in the instance of armed invasion OR cautiously used if some gang/crime organization acquires heavy artillery/tank/air power.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." Alexander Tyler
Not totally correct. We overthrew Allende. We set up the Communications network for Pinochet. We threw our support behind Pinochet. Our Government was no where near what Chile was under Allende. As a former Army Officer I would not want to see the Military in control of our Government. It would have to get a heck of a lot worse before I would even start thinking about something like this. Yes we are having a lot of problems. Yes there are political forces working aginst our Constitution. But we are no where near the need to have the Militay take control of our Government. This would be insane and the end of our Republic.
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.