Line between military, civilian roles grows fuzzier

Josey1

Line between military, civilian roles grows fuzzier Even civil-liberties groups moderate views on what's appropriate 10/14/2001 By DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News Soldiers in camouflage, armed with M-16s or 9 mm pistols, stand guard at airport check-in areas, eyes peeled for a suspicious-looking person or package. Overhead, F-16 fighter jets patrol the sky, ready to escort - or even shoot down - any commercial plane should the situation warrant it. Other troops are poised behind the scenes, ready to restore law and order in the event of a catastrophic event, such as a biological, chemical or nuclear attack. We've all noticed a growing military presence in civilian life. And we're likely to see a lot more of it in the days to come. "We have to recognize that the line between civilian responsibilities and military responsibilities is getting fuzzier," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon. Mr. Thornberry, like many other military and political leaders, believes that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks make it clear that the military must assume a larger role on U.S. soil than in the past. Even civil-liberties groups, normally alarmed at the idea of the military taking on a greater domestic role, concede that the threat of terrorism has moderated their views. "No one is going to put principle ahead of national survival," said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. But a military role on U.S. soil should come with strict civilian oversight, Mr. Aftergood said. The separation of the military from involvement in civilian affairs "is such a fundamental principle that if it needs be modified, it needs to be done with extreme caution and considerable safeguards. ... We don't want to live in a military state. We won't." Dramatic changes in the role of the military should not be made in haste, said John Attanasio, dean of Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law and a constitutional scholar. "What [everyone] is trying to do is to prevent the possibility that what happened on Sept. 11 will happen again. But will the use of troops do that?" n Traditionally, Americans have been wary of using military forces in law-enforcement activities. The legal principle for this separation of civilian and military authority is grounded in the Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1876. The law strictly prohibited the military from being used for law enforcement. The original intent of Posse Comitatus (literally "force of the county") was to put an emphasis on local law enforcement. The act ended the use of federal troops to enforce state laws and elections in the former Confederate states after the Civil War. That law has been weakened over the last 20 years, as Congress has allowed exceptions for the military to be involved in the drug war, civil disturbances such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots and counterterrorism. In the case of a serious terrorist attack that is beyond the FBI's capabilities to manage, a military task force can temporarily take over operational control to restore order and enforce the law, according to a General Accounting Office report released last month. Key civilian and defense leaders have called for a review of the Posse Comitatus Act in light of recent events. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently said that he strongly favors reviewing the Posse Comitatus Act. The Sept. 11 attacks made it "possible for Americans to envision terrorist attacks" in which "the military would have unique response capabilities," Mr. Wolfowitz said during testimony Oct. 4 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., who co-chaired the recent U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, said the "basic theory that you don't want a military acting in a law-enforcement function in the United States is sound." But with the possibility of a major disaster involving biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, "then you need the armed forces to act and to respond to the disaster in this country," Mr. Rudman said on the CNBC show Tim Russert. The commission, which issued its final report in February, urged Congress to create a National Homeland Security Agency incorporating the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Customs Service and the Border Patrol. Mr. Thornberry and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have introduced bills to create such an agency. Meanwhile, the Pentagon's recently released Quadrennial Defense Review calls for creating a command to direct military forces needed for homeland defense, in the same way the U.S. Central Command directs military forces operating in the Middle East. "I'm convinced this is going to happen now," said Col. Michael Colpo, director of military assistance to civilian authorities at the Army War College. With the end of the Cold War, the military should have greater flexibility to respond to threats at home as well as abroad, Col. Colpo said. "I definitely believe we could take on a greater role in assisting in homeland security. I think the military needs to remain relevant." n But recent experiences show that mixing soldiers and civilians is fraught with potential danger. In May 1997, an 18-year-old shepherd, Esequiel Hernandez Jr., was shot by a Marine reconnaissance patrol near the Big Bend village of Redford while herding his goats. His death prompted Pentagon officials to suspend armed military patrols along the border with Mexico, where the Marines were helping spot and track suspected drug traffickers. A Pentagon investigation later found serious fault in the training and supervision of the Marine patrol. The report specifically said that brief training on the appropriate use of force did not balance combat responses drilled into Marines. Differences between civilian law enforcement and traditional military missions make it important that soldiers receive proper training for any new civilian missions, said Michelle Flournoy, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Ms. Flournoy believes the military needs to be involved more in domestic security, with the National Guard returning to its historic mission of homeland defense. "They are the most appropriate military force to use inside the United States," Ms. Flournoy said. That's a view shared by other political and military leaders, including Mr. Thornberry. The National Guard "is much more like the militia from our history than it is the active-duty regular military," Mr. Thornberry said. "I'm not saying there is a clean bright line" between the civilian and the military, Mr. Thornberry said. "But having the National Guard take up these homeland missions reflects the sensitivity to the role of the military in law enforcement-like activities." Mr. Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists, said that the United States is subject to the kinds of military attacks that it has never seen in modern history. "The question is, who is best equipped to handle that? In most cases it's not going to be the local sheriff. If we don't want to employ the military, we need to devise a credible alternative," Mr. Aftergood said. "The most important thing is what's going to work. It wouldn't be surprising if tasking the military was the solution. If that turns out to be the case, it will be necessary to devise a host of safeguards, including enhanced civilian lines of authority and numerous checks on military authority. That way, the concerns, which originally motivated Posse Comitatus, will be met." http://www.dallasnews.com/sun_reader/STORY.e984978558.b0.af.0.a4.7b01.html