Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does Posse Commitatus Preclude Our Military From Deploying Domestically

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 06:46 PM
Original message
Does Posse Commitatus Preclude Our Military From Deploying Domestically
in the event that a foreign nation invaded us?

Say China?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. No it can deploy for National Defense just not for Police actions
What about an incursion by Mexico?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eaprez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Even if it does...this administration has no regard for the rule of law
and the Republican party doesn't either unless it involves sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Can't our military Generals er...like, fire Bush, or something?
I don't know anything about military procedure, but if our military brass determined that Bush was unfit to be the Commander in Chief, can they ask him to step down? I don't mean like a "coup." I mean aren't there any rules to follow when the Commander in Chief is a nutjob whose decisions are getting people killed?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Todd B Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No.
As CiC, Bush outranks all military officers.. however, technically, Bush has not assumed the role of CiC since that title is only reserved for the President during formal declarations of war.

Of course, since our media refuses to do any homework and study basic civics, you wouldn't know it from their reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Wow! I didn't know that. So if he's not technically CiC right now
are the Generals, etc obligated to follow his orders? Do they have any recourse whatsoever given that we've not declared a war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. THe PCA was intended to prohibit
the U.S, military from performing law enforcement in the U.S. unless authorized. Consequently, if you look at it in terms of defense from a foreign attack, the answer appears to be "no."There are exceptions to the PCA that allow military to act during certain situations: The Insurrection Ace, 10 USC Secs. 331-335, crimes involving nuclear material, 18 USC Sec. 831, emergencies involving chemical and biolgoical wmds, 10 USC Sec. 382.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Posse Comitatus has no bite today - it's almost a myth
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 07:16 PM by BrotherBuzz
<snip>

Erosion of the Act

While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.

<snip>

Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.

But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.


http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Hmm, so using Homeland Security to round up Dem Texas Legislators
comes into play with this issue, I think?

Also, one has to understand what civilian law enforcement means exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Excellent point
and it merits looking at again:


JOSH MARSHALL


Just what did DeLay know about the Dems’ Texas plane?



At 34, I thought it’d be a while longer before I’d have to say that I hailed from a bygone era. But in my day, if a House majority leader was directly involved in a scandal that triggered a potentially criminal investigation at one cabinet department, an administrative review at another, and a grand jury investigation in his home state, he’d be in some trouble. Members of the opposition party might even push to get to the bottom of it.

Luckily for Tom DeLay, though, times change.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Tim Russert asked his panel about the growing list of revelations about the Texas Republican’s efforts to enlist federal law enforcement — and other federal agencies — in helping him settle a political fight back home in Texas.

In response, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said, “I don’t know enough to comment on that. I mean I just don’t know what happened there. I’m just not qualified to comment.” Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) cracked a couple of jokes and left it at that.

Either Biden is shamelessly indifferent to a possible abuse of office by the second-ranking Republican in the House or he was just terribly briefed. So, on the assumption that it was the latter and not the former, let me try to bring Biden up to speed.

As everyone now knows, a couple weeks ago, most Democrats in the Texas state House ran off to neighboring Oklahoma to avoid a vote on a DeLay-designed redistricting bill. Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick ordered the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to arrest the runaway Democrats and bring them back to Austin.

State troopers from the DPS eventually roped the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into the manhunt. By tricking them into thinking they were searching for a missing or crashed plane, the DPS got Homeland Security to help track down the airplane of former Texas Speaker Peter Laney (D), whom they suspected of helping ferry Democratic legislators out of the state.

That’s where things stood when I wrote about this last week.

Then last Thursday, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge declined to release the transcripts of conversations between the Texas DPS and his department because, he said, his department’s internal inquiry was “potentially a criminal investigation.”
The scope of the potential wrong-doing further expanded when it was revealed that the DPS had ordered all its records of the manhunt destroyed on May 14. A grand jury in Austin is now investigating what laws the DPS might have violated by destroying those documents.

Given Ridge’s revelations, few now doubt that people at the DPS and probably some pols in Texas got their hands dirty either in bamboozling Homeland Security or by covering up the bamboozlement after the fact. The big question has been whether DeLay was directly involved in this part of the caper.

DeLay’s spokesmen had insisted that he played no role in the manhunt other than passing on to the Justice Department Craddick’s request for federal law enforcement help in arresting the Democratic legislators.

Then last Thursday, DeLay took the opportunity to, shall we say, revise and extend his remarks.

DeLay conceded that a staffer in his office contacted the FAA to find out the whereabouts of Laney’s plane and received information on its location and flight plan. (DeLay first said this information was available to the public on the FAA website; the next day his office conceded that this was not the case.) He then passed that information on to Tom Craddick.

In other words, we now know that DeLay was personally involved in the effort to track down Laney’s plane. The chain of events went something like this:

Early on May 12, DeLay’s office called the FAA and received information about the whereabouts of Laney’s plane. Not long after that, DeLay spoke to Craddick by phone and passed along that information. Then, a short time later, Lt. Will Crais, a Texas state trooper working out of the command center in the conference room adjoining Craddick’s office, called the DHS and tricked them into helping search for the missing aircraft. The information Crais used was the information DeLay had passed on to Craddick.

There’s plenty we still don’t know. But DeLay’s story keeps changing. And his proximity to three separate investigations — two of them potentially criminal — keeps getting closer and closer.

Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but maybe Joe Biden would like to revise and extend his remarks as well.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Isn't the Pentagon already spying on us?
she asked, sitting here with an ATT compromised landline and a yahoo! account. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. and a cache of DOD cookies?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Got milk?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. Not if King George says it's okay.
If he's said its legal, its legal.
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 25th 2024, 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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