Did help come late because of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?

[question everything]

Many, including Ted Koepel last night wondered why it was the guards, not the army that was called for help. With the former taking longer to mobilize than the latter.

This is from the Wall St. Jornal:


Old Law Could Hinder Cleanup Of Damages Caused by Katrina

Post-Civil War Act Prevents Military From Guarding Buildings or Making Arrests

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 2, 2005; Page A12

The federal government's response to one of the nation's worst natural disasters has been complicated by a law from the aftermath of the Civil War.

With looting reported in parts of the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast, the military announced plans to send 30,000 National Guard troops to help local police departments protect buildings and arrest looters and rioters. Active-duty troops could have been deployed more quickly to do those tasks but aren't allowed to guard critical buildings like hospitals or confront looters because of restrictions imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

After the Civil War, the Army was deployed throughout the South to maintain civil order, enforce Reconstruction policies and prevent lingering political resentments from flaring into open violence. Public discomfort at the sight of federal soldiers at political rallies and polling places led Congress to pass the act, which bans the military from direct participation in law-enforcement roles like making arrests. Subsequent court cases cleared the way for active-duty troops to perform support or humanitarian tasks.

The law doesn't apply to the National Guard, a point commanders made repeatedly yesterday in trying to put to rest rumors that martial law had been declared in some of the worst-hit areas... The strictures of the law have been eroded by the demands of the nation's campaigns against drugs, illegal immigration and terrorism. Beginning with the Reagan administration, active-duty Navy and Air Force personnel have been used in the war on drugs, and thousands of active-duty military personnel are routinely deployed at high-profile events like the 1996 Atlanta Olympics or the Super Bowl to help prevent a terrorist attack.

Legal experts said if conditions along the Gulf Coast continue to deteriorate, policy makers could use an exception to the law -- the Insurrection Act -- that lets governors request active-duty forces during periods of severe public disorder. That is how active-duty personnel were allowed to help quell the Los Angeles riots in the early 1990s and the Chicago riots of 1968.

(snip)"

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112562274154029807,00.html (subscription)

[wli]

1. Not really, no. All it would take is a martial law declaration.

And that's not particularly rare during major natural disasters.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Then if that is the case

Then the Guard needs to be on American soil and the military needs to be on foreign soil.
This will make Bush have to make some hard decisions regarding his war in Iraq.
He doesn't have to count the NG as troops committed.
He can leave them out of the figures.
But if our homeland can only be guarded by National Guard...then their asses need to be home--NOW!

[Sgent]

3. As long as command of those troups

is put under command of the LA Govenor or Adjucnt General of the LA Natl. Gaurd its not an issue.

Just detach and assign.

[yy4me]

4. Who thought up this lulu,

Is this an excuse? I cannot imagine anyone in Washington paying attention to an old law. I'd just call it incompetence and leave it at that. The Guard has been sent out on other mass rescue and aid missions in the us, some old law won't work as a valid excuse. There isn't one.

[question everything]

5. Perhaps just an historical perspective. (nt)

[TaleWgnDg]

6. The short answer to your question is "NO!"

.
The short answer to your Wall Street Journal question is "NO!" The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 has squat to do with the late arrival of federal troops or help in the post-Katrina devastation! No, no way! Nor does our historic and legal need to separate our "regular" federal (military) troops from our state (National Guard) "militia" have squat to do with the late arrival of federal (or state) assistance to the 100s of thousands left stranded without adequate shelter, food, medical assistance, and/or water!

Instead, blame where blame is due and on point: George Walker Bush.

Yes, this entire f*ck up was due to George Walker Bush's federal money cut-backs from FEMA and other federal (and state) programs! Hell, had not George Walker Bush totally emasculated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ability to follow-through with its program of shoring up the entire levy-system and other anti-flooding issues, then New Orleans would NOT be in this present chaotic and devastating situation. FEMA was cut-back more than 90% since 9-11, correct? The New Orleans anti-flooding program was cut-back more than what percentage u/ GWBush since 9-11?!

It's an outrage!

All because of neo-con and war-monger, George Walker Bush! And all since 9-11!

The Wall Street Journal and Mr/Ms Yochi J. Dreazen can wax and wane wringing "intellectual" legalese hands; however, it merely sells news print not reality.

The long answer is:

1.) There is a difference of legal authority granted in our U.S. constitution through our congress regarding what the "regular" military (federal troops) can do, as distinguished from what the state "militia" National Guard can do.

2.) The "regular" federal military has no police powers while on American soil (if not upon their own U.S. military bases in America), that means the federal military cannot arrest or enforce law, period.

3.) The state "militia" National Guard has police powers when authorized by a state governor, that means the National Guard may arrest and enforce laws.

And, there you have it. There are exceptions to these "rules" but none of the exceptions were in effect during Katrina or up to now, so none of the exceptions apply up to present.

As a great overview, here's what JURIST NEWS said about this very issue, earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1745880

.

[applegrove]

7. Was a Democrat President? Look - people who can make up

phony reasons for war and convince a whole country can get around bureaucracy in a disaster. They know how to do it. The WH sat their like a vacuum and let it all unfold.