Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need some history on Posse Commitus - thanks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 08:20 AM
Original message
Need some history on Posse Commitus - thanks
I know it was enacted after the Civil War to stop the use of federal troops on US soil against US citizens. Have any presidents between that time & Bush demanded that a governor suspend posse commitus? (and correct me if I'm wrong on the demand on Blanco, thanks!) Any other key points I can make, other than comparing Bush to infamous dictators in the past century.

I am doing this as part of an LTTE.

Thanks


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Originally intended to protect segregation...
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States Federal Law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

However racist in its original motivation, the Act has had a positive benefit in preventing the United States from becoming a Third World banana republic, which Bush now seems intent on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. thanks
Have any presidents since tried to have it revoked, a la Bush with Blanco?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. kick
thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't know if this will help you or not.........
One of the things that I find odd, is that this administration has actually gone after Posse Comitatus on three separate occasions. The first time was shortly after 911, Sen. Warner floated the idea to better protect ourselves against terrorism. Both parties said no way. Then the second was after Katrina, and now a third time because of all the Avian Flu hubbub. They seem really intent on doing it in, this is the third time it has been mentioned.

What makes me the most suspicious of there actions is the fact that Bush is lying about what power he already has, trying to get more power. There is no reason under Posse Comitatus that he can't use the military in a support role for aid. If you listen or read his speeches you'll see he is leading the average person to believe that he does not have that power, when he already does.

Also, something else worth pointing out is the NG and Coast Guard are already exempt from the act. They can pretty much be used however the Governor of each state sees fit.

I guess this is my point...As far as "help" goes, he already has that power. The only power he could be seeking is to use the military as a policing unit on U.S. soil. Nothing else makes sense, because he already has all the other power he needs to "help."

Oh and BTW- the correct spelling is Posse Comitatus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here is an interesting article with some history listed
but keep in mind the article in it's totality is in relation to homeland security and, therefore, has it's own biases in it's conclusions, imo.

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here's some info on PCA being suspended
~snip~

The act contains legal loopholes by exception, "except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." These exceptions provided a loophole by which Posse Comitatus has been suspended several times in this century, including use of federal troops to end rioting in Chicago in 1919, against "Bonus Marchers" in Washington, D.C. in 1932, and under the Truman administration when a railroad workers’ strike was ended by nationalizing the railroads and placing them temporarily under the Army Corps of Engineers. Recent debates have been over what authorities troops should have during Hurricane Andrew relief operations, and how, or whether, troops could be employed to support the Olympic Games in Atlanta.

~snip~

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ToQH48BaVeYJ:www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baker1.html+suspended+The+Posse+Comitatus+Act+president+&hl=en

Also, I found this interesting: A GOPer warning about Bush suspending the PCA:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:n2HcoES7XBgJ:www.gopinsight.com/2005/10/posse-comitatus-one-small-act-of.php+suspend+The+Posse+Comitatus+Act+president+&hl=en
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Forgot to add
It seems Bush I may have come close to suspending PCA in regards to LA riots, whether it was technically suspended, I don't know, but here's an account where someone thinks he did at least the equivalent of that:


~snip~
When it comes to the use of troops to restore order during riots, however,
the president can suspend the Posse Comitatus Act at the stroke of a pen.
The act doesn't cover soldiers deployed as authorized by the Constitution
or exempted from the Act by statute.
Defense Department regulations (DoD Directive 3025.12) outline one of the
larger loopholes. It allows soliders to be used "to prevent loss of life or
wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and
public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disaster, or
calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal
governmental functions."
The reality? The president can deploy troops whenever he feels like it.
President Bush did just this in response to the the Los Angeles riots. On
April 29, 1992, the jury released its verdict in the Rodney King trial. A
wave of riots followed. On May 1, 1992, California asked the president for
aid; Bush responded with an Executive Order allowing the Secretary of
Defense to call out the Army.
~snip~

http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2002/Oct/0013.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. It was the final nail in the end of reconstruction.
Which meant that the slave states won.

Beyond that, it's a farce. The president can authorize the use of troops on American soil any time he feels like it by cooking up some "reason" for doing so, i.e. riots, floods, hurricanes, insurrection, rowdy girl scouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC