Is Posse Comitatus good for US?

[mixedmedia]

Blackwater was there to provide security for the property of their employers, I presume up to and including the shooting of looters. (One of the hotels was raided by looters; they left the food and water, but did quite a number on the liquor. Shooting them comes under the heading of "civic improvement.")

The governor was irrelevant when she exercised no control (one of the reasons we have a Second Amendment), and as far as I know she remains ineffective and irrelevant.

When asked what authority they were operating under, one guy said, "We're on contract with the Department of Homeland Security." Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, "He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary." The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck. Blackwater spokesperson Anne Duke also said the company has a letter from Louisiana officials authorizing its forces to carry loaded weapons.

The above is from the article that started this thread.

Since when is shooting thieves American law enforcement policy? Needless to say your idea of "civic improvement" makes me feel ill.

 

[mixedmedia]

If they're taking fire they should be able to defend themselves but like I said before Waco and the New Orleans flood are two totally different scenarios, I've made my position perfectly clear I support the use of troops on our soil when it is done for humanitarian purposes because there is no other force capable of handling such a huge disaster as Katrina, however, the same cannot be said for Waco, there was no reason why the National Guard should have been used in that situation and was only done so that Clinton could save face. There's a difference b/w using your troops to save lives and using them to take lives Clinton did the latter.

Jeesh, what if they're not taking fire? Say here that you will not support the use of lethal force in New Orleans by mercenaries given the blessing of the Office of Homeland Security and Kathleen Blanco and I will leave you alone.

 

[C.J.]

I agree with much of what you say. As I understand it, Posse Comitatus is to prevent the feds from barging in uninvited, shoving the local government aside, and taking over the whole show.

Federal troops were used during post civil war reconstruction as poll watchers, to maintain civil order, to enforce government reconstruction policies, and handle any rebellion. Congress felt that the Army was becoming politicized and were being utilized in such a manner that they were rapidly becoming a national police force, and they felt the Posse Comitatus Act was necessary to stop it.

Stafford and Civil Disturbance formalize this by specifying that the state will make the request and, as you say, are to operate in a supportive role to the local governments.

That's basically correct, except for three things. First, if a state government lost total civil control, the governors permission or request is not needed. Second, Congress can at any time decide to intervene, without a governors permission or request. Presidential powers allow the president to intervene when national security is at stake.

Those who think the feds should have taken a more active role earlier on should reflect that that would mean shoving the mayor and governor aside a couple of days ahead of time in order to start a mandatory evacuation and commandeer the city bus fleet to move the poorer occupants out. That would spark a very large protest, and (IMO) with very good reason. In New Orleans it would have been justified, but most of us would be nervous about the feds taking over a nanny role to protect us from the incompetence of our local elected government.

I agree, in my opinion the feds should support, not just move in and take over, regardless of state and local failures.

There was a marvelous exchange during the hearings today, when Brown commented that Louisiana hadn't appointed a replacement for the departed state director of emergency management.
Q: "Wait a minute! What happened to the guy that was there before?"
A: "He was indicted."

And thereby hangs a tale.

I grew up in S Louisiana, and lived there for 38 years. Many politicians and their appointees deserve a slum jail, and this is especially true of those from New Orleans.

 

[Diogenes]

Federal troops were used during post civil war reconstruction as poll watchers, to maintain civil order, to enforce government reconstruction policies, and handle any rebellion. Congress felt that the Army was becoming politicized and were being utilized in such a manner that they were rapidly becoming a national police force, and they felt the Posse Comitatus Act was necessary to stop it.



That's basically correct, except for three things. First, if a state government lost total civil control, the governors permission or request is not needed. Second, Congress can at any time decide to intervene, without a governors permission or request. Presidential powers allow the president to intervene when national security is at stake.

Thank you for the historical context and the clarification.

 

[Fantasea]

1. What is the alternative to using troopers when the civil authorities are unable to cope with a situation. New Orleans, where between 200 and 250 policemen went AWOL, and the remainder were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the after effects of Katrina, is a prime example of how troopers can be properly used to augment civilian authorities.

2. The use of troopers to secure the borders to prevent infiltration by unauthorized persons is not a violation of "posse comitatus" since the efforts are not directed against US citizens or legal residents.

What's wrong with conducting training exercises along the borders instead of on bases?

 

[C.J.]

1. What is the alternative to using troopers when the civil authorities are unable to cope with a situation. New Orleans, where between 200 and 250 policemen went AWOL, and the remainder were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the after effects of Katrina, is a prime example of how troopers can be properly used to augment civilian authorities.

There are several alternatives, but it is not illegal under posse comitatus and subsequent laws to utilize them in the manner you mention.

2. The use of troopers to secure the borders to prevent infiltration by unauthorized persons is not a violation of "posse comitatus" since the efforts are not directed against US citizens or legal residents.

Posse comitatus makes no distinction between "US citizens or legal residents" or non US citizens or illegal residents. It simply makes it illegal for our armed forces to be used as a posse comitatus or to to execute laws. It does not prohibit a supportive role by the military.

What's wrong with conducting training exercises along the borders instead of on bases?

Military training exercises can be performed along our borders, and are, but they can't use training exercises as a front to enforce U.S. or state laws.

 

[Fantasea]

The definition of "posse comitatus" is temporary police force.

The following is the applicable section in its entirety:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 67 - MILITARY AND NAVY

U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus​

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

I don't see therein any prohibition to the use of military forces to guard the US borders against infiltration by unauthorized persons.

 

[C.J.]

The definition of "posse comitatus" is temporary police force.

Actually that's not what it means. From Latin it means "the force of the country," and as used in the Act, indicates nothing temporary, but it would include temporary, as well as permanent use of the military in law enforcement.

The following is the applicable section in its entirety:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 67 - MILITARY AND NAVY

U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus​

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

I don't see therein any prohibition to the use of military forces to guard the US borders against infiltration by unauthorized persons.

The prohibition is that the armed forces cannot be used to enforce laws, which does not exclude immigration laws.

They can however be used in a supportive manner, for instance using their intelligence capabilities, and alerting the Border Patrol or other law enforcement.