In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Military for Domestic Law Enforcement

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited July 2002 in General Discussion
U.S. Mulls Military's Domestic Role
Sun Jul 21, 4:44 PM ET
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law.


Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Terrorism & Sept. 11 Attacks




President Bush ( news - web sites) has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the "Posse Comitatus Act."

Ridge said Sunday that it "goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest," and called the prospect "very unlikely."

But he said the government is wise to examine the law.

"We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event," Ridge said on "Fox News Sunday." "And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus."

Two influential Democratic senators agreed with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed, but expressed no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens.

Sen. Carl Levin ( news, bio, voting record), chairman Senate Armed Services Committee ( news - web sites), said posse comitatus "has served us well for a long time."

"It's kept the military out of law enforcement, out of arresting people except in the most unusual emergency situations like a riot or after some kind of a disaster where they have to protect against looting," Levin, D-Mich., said on CNN's "Late Edition."

However, he said: "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful in a very supportive and assisting role even than they have been up to now - providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting people."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he favors expanding the military's role in responding to major catastrophes such as an attack by a weapon of mass destruction.

The law "has to be amended, but we're not talking about general police power," Biden, D-Del., said on "Fox News Sunday."

Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, who heads the new military command charged with defending American territory, told The New York Times he favors changing the law to grant greater domestic powers to the military to protect against terror attacks. He offered no specific changes he favored.

Congress is racing to approve legislation by the end of its session this fall that would make Bush's proposed Department of Homeland Security a reality.

In the Senate, a version of the measure by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., tracks closely with Bush's plan. It also would augment the agency's ability to gather and analyze intelligence from the FBI ( news - web sites), CIA ( news - web sites) and others.

That bill is to be considered by the Senate committee Wednesday.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey said on NBC's "Meet the Press" there was a strong possibility Congress will resolve its differences and send Bush a bill enacting the sweeping government reorganization by Sept. 11.

Some lawmakers have expressed concern about rushing decisions on far-reaching changes in the bureaucracy, but Armey said: "It's time to move forward with this. The president's got a good plan."

Bush planned to give a speech Monday about his proposed new department and view demonstrations of high-technology devices for combatting terrorism that are being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1086&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/homeland_security_6



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Bad Idea!

    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's kind of interesting that civilians shouldn't carry guns because they aren't trained and they should stick to their role as producers and consumers (but watch those alert colors!), airline pilots shouldn't carry guns because they aren't trained and they should stick to flying the plane, but let's take a close look at using the military for domestic law enforcement. The military is trained to do this: Kill people and break things. Except for possibly the MP, where is the law enforcement training?

    "The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away." Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin, commander of the first Death Star.

    Edited by - Gordian Blade on 07/22/2002 11:50:03
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    The only thing I would agree to the military being used for is border security and possibly airport security. We should use our military to stop the illegal invasion of our country. We need to build walls at both borders and inforce the border areas to not only keep out terrorists but illegal aliens as well.

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah, the military should be used to do what its needed for when its needed for it, but if thats the case, why not deputize all of those honorably discharged vets that could be of value during a national crisis? Sounds to me like we have a great opportunity for a double standard to occur here. The general populace isnt good enough to help itself, but the military is? The guy who wears a uniform is qualified to do what he is told, right?, but next week when he no longer wears it he is suddenly no longer qualafied to do so? Bullcrap! I dont mind the idea of using the military, I hate the idea that American citizens are treated as substandard during a crisis and unable to react to a crisis as they should as an American citizen. I'm leary of giving the military the ability to arrest as instructed, there would be no probable cause, it would be your tough crap luck, you are under arrest, and do not resist or be beat. I've got first hand knowledge of how screwed up the military is when it comes to justice, and I'm not willing to treat citizens the way the military is treated.

    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
Sign In or Register to comment.