The Pentagon, rushing to complete lame-duck President George W. Bush’s expansion of the military’s role in the United States, is stepping up to put more troops inside this country and take over key roles in homeland security.
In a move that will certainly alarm civil libertarians and should concern American citizens, the military plan rolls back the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the military’s role as a law enforcement agency inside U.S. borders.
Residents in and around the nation’s capital have already witnessed the transformation of that city into an armed military camp. Assault weapon carrying soldiers guard federal institutions and commuters to and from work pass military vehicles topped with machine guns and manned by troops alongside public highways.
That, some military analysts say, is just the beginning.
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.
But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
24 thoughts on “A military takeover of U.S. law enforcement?”
I am in Chicago and I don’t know if it is particularly heavy here because of Obama being around but the military/police presence in the Chicago Loop is staggering! For the actual rally we had riot police all over the place, with shoulder launched teargas grenade launchers, and dogs, and special tactical unit vehicles. On Veteran’s Day (Nov. 11) there was also unbelievable overkill – for some reason ICE personnel, among others in military garb were walking around with attack dogs, eyeballing people on the street and giving out bad vibes. I have never seen such continuous presence of these paramilitary type “police” as I see now!
This is EXTREMELY worrisome. Things have changed and I don’t like it and am getting as far away as I can!
“In a Democracy, a little bloodshed is a good thing.”
George Washington
I read an article by Naomi Wolfe back on October 10th concerning this issue:
https://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/
I may be wrong, but it seems to me to be a grab at more power by the executive branch.
I saw on a television show a few years ago giving an accurate explanation why the police and the military are separate entities. The police protect and serve the people of the state. The military defends the state from its enemies. When the military act as police, the people tend to become the enemies of the state.
Seeing how King George and his administration have been treating the Constitution and a disdain for the rule of law in this country, and Congress basically abdicating their responsibility of oversight of the Executive branch, what the Pentagon & Bush are trying to do should be of no surprise. What should be a surprise is that it hasn’t happened sooner.
Having been to Kent State too many times to even remember, I can tell you this event is still talked about to this day.
I just don’t understand why they would re-train active duty personnel to perform what has been traditionally a National Guard duty unless they want to ensure people from the area aren’t in the unit and aren’t involved emotionally with the actions they are taking against US citizens. It would otherwise be cheaper and more efficient to use the Guard as has always been the case. Not that I would ever accuse the Pentagon of doing what’s more cost efficient or even making sense.
Take into account many regulars are Guatemalan, Mexican, and from many other countries these days, our government having promised them fast-track to citizenship if they served, would they even hesitate should the order come?
But to what end Flapsaddle?
Why do it in the first place?
Is it to undermine the state governors since they will no longer need to authorize Guard usage?
I just don’t see the point of doing it unless you are up to no good.
This effectively circumvents the Posse Commitatus Act (18 USC 1385) and allows, as during the Reconstruction era, the use of Federal troops to directly enforce state police powers.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
The shootings appear to have been caused by a number of things, but a deliberate order from a competent commander was not anywhere in the mix.
Actually, there were other cases near to it in time that did involve deliberate orders to shoot – the Watts riots in 1964 – but in this case it involved a total breakdown of civilian authority with attendant shooting, arson and looting.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Obviously, Gazelle, you’ve NEVER visited the nation’s capitol and seen armed troops with assault weapons on their rooves pointed at passersby: believe me, it is quite unnerving. I have yet to get used to the barricades in front of some of our NATIONAL buildings: the armed troops in front of them are something else entirely. Try seeing the sights in our Nation’s Capitol sometime. You might just change your tune. Even spending a lot of time there doesn’t get one used to it, especially when a person has lived in the area their entire life.
This is not much ado about nothing. We are not a third world country; nor are we supposed to be a dictatorship, although with the Bush administration, it has sometimes been hard to tell the difference. What is frightening is that the incoming administration won’t take advantage of the increased military presence for malevolent puposes, the next Republican one is likely to. The right wing of that party never gives up power easily; the next time it won’t be willing to give it up at all.
As I said above, it’s a dangerous precedent.
It allows the camel to get its nose further under the tent without resorting to a declaration of martial law. Did we do that even in New Orleans after Katrina? Did we do that after 9/11? IIRC, the last time an American city was placed under martial law was in 1955 – Phenix City, Alabama – because civil authority had broken down, the state was powerless – unwilling? – to intervene, and both civilians soldiers were being assaulted and murdered.
Perhaps its intent is similar to that expressed by Hamilton on the Whiskey Tax and the suppression of the subsequent rebellion: To accustom the populace to the authority of the national government.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
woody188 asked: “Are the Guardsmen too undependable to open fire on their own families?”
Not the ones at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 when an Ohio Army National Guard unit opened fire on students during a war protest on campus, killing four and wounding nine.
Amen.
Not a very good analogy. The troops involved were not, AFAIK, “family” of any kind to any of the protesters. The shooting came from a small group of soldiers isolated from the rest of their unit and feeling themselves to be both outnumbered and threatened after a maneuver to disperse students. The troops fired on their own, without the order of an officer, or without any ROE authorizing them to fire under such circumstances.
The subsequent investigation found that the troops – from Cos. A and C, 1st Bn, 145th Inf, and Trp. G, 2nd Sqdrn, 107th Cav, had not been properly trained in all aspects of civil disturbance and riot-control action and that commanders had failed to maintain adequate control of their men during the dispersal action and the follow-on. The National Guard and the State of Ohio ultimately admitted to the use excessive force through settling of lawsuits with the injured and the families of the dead.
Further, the actions of the governor and of Guard officials further inflamed the situation; however, the students protesting were becoming more aggressive in their actions.
It was a bad situation with terrible consequences, but I do not think that it supports the contention that NG troops will blindly fire on protesters simply because they are ordered to do so.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
I interpreted “family” in a more general, universal sense, referring to fellow citizens, as opposed to foreign enemies.
I agree that the likelihood of a similar incident taking place now is quite remote. I was just providing a historical reference, since there was at least once case of NG troops firing on U.S. citizens.
Comments are closed.