Soldiers shouldn’t be cops

Abilene Reporter-News ^ | July 26, 2002 | Editorial

[corsair]

Friday, July 26, 2002

Soldiers shouldn’t be cops

The Posse Comitatus Act is more doctrine than law. It was passed in 1878 to prevent civil authorities from pressing federal troops into service on posses. Since then, it has grown into a general prohibition against using the U.S. military to perform domestic police functions.

It does not cover the National Guard, whom governors frequently call on for riot control or preventing looting after a flood, or the U.S. Coast Guard. The law was amended slightly in 1981 to allow military logistical support for drug-interdiction efforts.

The act does not restrict the president, as commander in chief, from calling out the U.S. military in cases of domestic emergency — and this would certainly include response to a nuclear, biological or chemical incident. However, President Bush has asked Congress to review the law with a view toward giving the military a greater role in domestic security.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said there should be “a discussion about Posse Comitatus.” He said, “Generally, that goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest.” He got that right. But he went on, rather confusingly, to say it “does not mean that (the military power of arrest) will ever be used or that the discussion will conclude that it even should be used.”

Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, charged with the new domestic security military command, said he, too, would favor unspecified changes in the law.

Maybe these are trial balloons, or maybe the administration’s thinking about reform of Posse Comitatus just hasn’t advanced very far.

However, the principle that the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement has served this country well. The two have separate and distinct missions. Search, seizure, arrest and evidence gathering are police functions. The military’s mission is to wage war, a duty from which it should not be distracted.

A 124-year-old law that has grown encrusted with tradition and regulation is certainly worth re-examining. But Congress should do so cautiously. It should not be stampeded into acting in the interest of “security,” and it should not compromise the fundamental principle that law stands for.

[corsair]

Although the editorial says that Posse Comitatus does not cover the National Guard and Coast Guard, I believe that the Navy Department (USN and USMC) are also exempt from the restrictions of Posse Comitatus.

[snopercod]

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

I can't think of anything that would destroy America more quickly than to have FEDERAL troops imposing themselves into local law enforcement.

In short order, America would turn into another Venezuela or Nicaragua, with all their "death squads", military coups and such.

The folks in Washington need to be reminded that it is not THEY that make America great, it is US - those of us that live and work in all the little towns and cities throughout the States.

The folks in DC can't even police their own town, but they want to police the entire nation. Pffffffftttttt!

[NetValue]

"The military’s mission is to wage war, a duty from which it should not be distracted."

So wrong! The military's mission is to DEFEND the United States against enemies, foreign and domestic. That is why it is called the Department of Defense and not the Department of War.

The editorial's premise is WRONG, and it just goes on from there. Very fuzzy thinking. Sounds like "liberal reasoning".

[grania]

So wrong! The military's mission is to DEFEND the United States against enemies, foreign and domestic. That is why it is called the Department of Defense and not the Department of War.

I agree with you. Oftentimes, these discussions are started by those who are opposed to the military being used to defend our borders.

Their argument doesn't make any sense. Stopping illegals from entering the country is not the same as having them go into citizen's house and arresting them.

It's all a stall, while the military continues to defend borders all over the world, but not our own.

But, apparantly, access to cheap labor is more important than maintaining the integrity of US borders.

[reform4me]

the real problem isn't soldiers that
play cops it is cops that like to
play little soldiers.check out the
uniforms some of these clucks wear,
one police chief on tv recently was
dressed like an admiral!

[ReaganCowboy]

I would encourage you to read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and then the Third Amendment -- and then asked yourself 'historically, why would the founders insist on these two individual rights?' And then re-think whether Posse Comitatus should be abandoned to allow military units to act in the place of local, state and federal law enforcement.

The sword of justice is a fine instrument, but it is not a solider's sword.

[joyful1]

I've got the trump...Muslims shouldn't be terrorists.

Since so many of them are, so many are in sleeper cells that are planning to kill thousands of us, it makes sense to give cops all they need to get the killers before they kill.

[Vigilant1]

Soldiers know how to do one thing well - destroy the enemey, killing as many enemy troops as possible. That's what they're trained to do. That's why they make lousy cops. We tried using Marine Corp soldiers to patrol the border once. The one thing they accomplished was to blow away a Mexican sheperd boy tending his goats on Mexican soil.

The most important thing is the vital legal principle of keeping law enforcement and the military completely seperate. Once we use the military for law enforcement, that creates a new legal precident and that seperation is gone forever. Eventually, that will mean federal troops stationed on street corners and setting up road blocks in intersections as standard proceedure whenever the governemnt sees fit. Wannabe tyrants are salavating at the prostect of gaining such power. It would be a major step toward turning America into just another banana republic.

An exception was written into the Posse Comatatus Act during the Reagan years that allowed limited use of the military to fight the 'War on Drugs'. One day, the FBI decided that they needed some heavy armor for a civilian law enforcement operation. So they simply lied to the Army, telling them there was a meth lab at the place they wanted to assault, and got free use of M60A2 tanks, M2 Bradley IFVs and M113 APCs. The feebs then carried out their operation a few miles outside of Waco, Texas. For those who are too dense to get it, to understand why soldiers should never become cops on American soil, take a good long look. This is what happens when we ignore the Posse Comatatus Act:

This is the future some misguided people here are cheering for.

[Marine Inspector]

The one thing they accomplished was to blow away a Mexican sheperd boy tending his goats on Mexican soil.

Lets not leave out the fact that the boy shot at the Marines first, and I do believe it happened in Texas, not Mexico.

[realpatriot71]

I don't think anyone is saying that the marines did a bad job being marines, but rather that the marines did a "bad" job as cops. :-)

[archy]

I can't think of anything that would destroy America more quickly than to have FEDERAL troops imposing themselves into local law enforcement.

In general, I agree, but with two important reservations.

If the military are to be used, it'd be an excellent opportunity to scale back our bloated, corrupt and inefficient ranks of the police agencies that have not only failed to control crime, but have actually contributed to it. A reduction by half would seem to be a good start.

And, of course, if the Army is also allowed to investigate crimes and criminal activities committed by corrupt and crooked politicians, to include congressmen and corrupt federal judges, they might indeed serve a valuable function.

And I bet if either of those two ideas or both are seriously promoted, the idea of so using the Army will suddenly be reconsidered very quickly....

-archy-/-

[First_Salute]

I'd like to dedicate the photo to all so-called "Freepers" who are quick to state that "no way" can numbers of our people in uniform keep a secret; in re TWA 800, etc.

[corsair]

Yes, it did happen in Texas. I believe the closest town was Redmond, Texas. The victim was Esequiel Hernandez a young goatherder of about 19 years of age.

Young Hernandez routinely carried a .22-caliber rifle to shoot at predators. By some accounts, the Marines had tracked Hernandez. The Marines claimed Hernandez had shot at them. The first accounts said the Marines were wearing Ghillie Suits. As I thought about this unfortunate incident, I reflected that maybe a man wearing a Ghillie Suit making any movement, however slight, could be mistaken for a predator at a distance.

I believe this happened when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. The Texas Rangers were pissed at Border Patrol, the Marines and Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6). The Marines were transferred. A Texas Grand Jury convened at Marfa, Texas had a hearing on this case. I wonder what the transcripts. Show. A spokesman for JTF-6 said at the time the military wanted out of this kind of situation. Here's a couple of stories with links to other stories.
(1) http://www.vikingphoenix.com/politics/Election2000/Issues2000/NationalSecurity/marfa-1.htm

(2) http://www.vikingphoenix.com/politics/Election2000/Issues2000/NationalSecurity/marfa.htm

I think that a thorough and deliberate examination of the Esequiel Hernandez case should be introduced to debates on Posse Comitatus.

There have been other shootings on the border with Mexican smugglers and Mexican military shooting at American military and Border Patrol. I recall one anecdote of a U.S. Special Forces soldier wounded in one such encounter.

[snopercod]

I got drafted into the US Army '69.

The first thing I learned was how many stupid A$$holes there were in the world. I guess I had led a sheltered life, but, damn, the people I was thrown in with were...well...not the people who I would have chosen to associate with.

They were violent. They cheated. They lied. They were dishonest. They were stupid.

Not all of them. They were a mix. We had PhDs, businessmen, but mostly: worthless punks from the inner cities. Thanks to the training and discipline in those days, some of them probably turned around and became useful citizens. But not many, I suspect.

I respect the military, but I wouldn't want the kind of people who populated the ranks back then to be "in charge".

[corsair]

bump

[snopercod]

Whew...I thought I was going to get flamed. Thank you thank you!

[corsair]

bump

[First_Salute]

The so-called "street-wise" kids knew almost nothin' outside their block(s). They did not know how to brush their teeth. They did not know how to clean anything. They did not know ... They were the product of production without quality control.

Yet they did not know honesty --- especially from their teachers (including their parents).What they knew was a social- pin- ball- game, and they played it well, though outside the game they were miserable.

One guy sought at all times to create a gang which he could control. The night before leaving boot camp, I let him know, in front of the entire 49-man unit, that if he screwed up, I would break him into little pieces; he had better be squared away and pretty, or else.

And then I went and had a chat with a colleague of the adjoining unit, and we sat on the floor among the racks of M-1 Garands, while I lamented my fate, should that little bastard screw up.

I later came across him in Virginia, Hampton Roads area; and he was still a little bastard.

Much later, I was subject to the machinations of a guy who did not understand the limits of his authority as an L.E.O. at sea, so to speak; he also liked to push people around. And then at another station, yet another little prince really got carried away, abusing his authority.

So I left the business.

While these clowns were dangerous, they were only bad to a point --- where the "higher-ups" would fail principles and the law, which behavior of "bosses" I will not tolerate.

I therefore chose to discriminate and dis-enfranchise them from my life, excluding them from my happy pursuit, to follow "the straight line" (thank you, Geo. Washington).

A little later, I happened upon a University office of Ceramic Engineering, to see a distinguished acquaintance. Well he wasn't in; he'd left the position which had then been filled by a, well ...

I had wandered into the office, as I typically had before, expecting to find the good professor, but no luck. Upon turning around, I engaged the secretaries in some conversation, when a gentleman entered and walked by, "glowering" at me. I thought, "duly noted." Finishing the pleasant conversation, I left the office.

No sooner did I make the turn, then the gentleman began to throw a fit, chewing out the secretaries about their candid-ness with me.

I promptly returned to the office.

I marched in there in my best Vice-Chief of Staff, U.S.A.F., S.A.C. - mode, and I let him have it with "both barrels." Especially, considering the tears streaming down the ladies' faces.

What a royal, pain in the ass, that guy was, jealous of his predecessor and such.

I turned to the ladies, bowed and said, "Ladies." And goodbye.