Need a new Militia Act

[Evan Thomas]

Imagine you deploy to Iraq or Afganistan with a group of people who don't know each other and have never worked together, have no idea of military discipline, woodcraft, tactics, and just plain living out there in the field. They do however, have guns and may be reasonable shots but have said the only orders they'll take are the ones they like and answer to no UCMJ, but you can sue them I guess if they really mess up. They are just people off the street with guns.

Ummm... "private contractors," anyone?

I'm sure some are reasonably trained, especially ex-military, but as to discipline, there have been some really bad incidents.

Now are you going into combat with these clowns?

Exactly.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ummm... "private contractors," anyone?

I'm sure some are reasonably trained, especially ex-military, but as to discipline, there have been some really bad incidents.

And with soldiers too, but your point is well taken. I think (I hope) that Blackwater Operatives are better trained than the Drunks with Guns militia I displayed earlier. But one of the big complaints against the contractors is that they (hello!) don't answer to anybody!

 

[Evan Thomas]

Private contractors

I think there's an interesting question here as to the status of these "corporate militias." I believe (I'm sure others on this board are more knowledgeable than I am about this) that there is a legal prohibition on the use of mercenaries by the Federal Government, and doesn't the current administration get around this by saying, "Oh, no, that's just foreign mercenaries!"? But they're really careful never to call them that, hence the term "private contractors."

But the government does have the power to call up a militia... so how is it that Blackwater Ops. and the like aren't part of the established military hierarchy, subject to the UCMJ, etc. when they're contracted to operate in a war zone?

Of course, Bush and Co. haven't shown themselves too concerned about petty legalities like the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention (which is US law, under the terms of the Constitution)...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

so how is it that Blackwater Ops. and the like aren't part of the established military hierarchy, subject to the UCMJ, etc. when they're contracted to operate in a war zone?

Good question but kind of off topic. I don't think anyone would confuse Blackwater with a militia. Probably need a lawyer to answer. May be because of a volunteer force that can't meet all it's comittments? I know my buddy who commanded a brigade two years ago in Iraq was VERY leery of them.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Blackwater and the other companies are not performing as military units nor are they employed or commanded by the military. They are simply security contractors to government agencies and NGO's. There is a distinction between the two roles.

 

[copenhagen]

Blackwater and the other companies are not performing as military units nor are they employed or commanded by the military. They are simply security contractors to government agencies and NGO's. There is a distinction between the two roles.

Stagger, it's rare for me to agree with you, but this time I do.

TNGent, I need to mull over your response for awhile, and then I'll post back.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

TNGent, I need to mull over your response for awhile, and then I'll post back.

Ponder this as well. With the exception of when I lived in military housing in most other places we lived I did not know my neighbors. Even today after retirement there are people on my street whom I have never met and wouldn't know them if they hit me in the face. I may be unusual, granted, but I think in this mobile disposable society we live in today (not like when I was a kid) most people are in that place today. I can not imagine having to work with them in a hurry or even if I had a few days to get them together to fight as some kind of militia. Hell, they would not even listen to me and it would be a disaster. That was not the way people were in 1790, they had to depend on each other and we don't today. Sad commentary but true.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Militia at the state and local level

Thanks, Antipitas, for the complimentary introduction. Yes, I am a published scholar, but anyone can upload a paper to SSRN. Scholars do that to invite comments from others on a paper that is a work in progress, usually before finally submitting it to a professional, peer-reviewed journal. That and other articles are destined for law review journals or chapters in a book I am writing. For more on my scholarly credentials see my CV.

I am much experienced in trying to activate militia at the state and local level. That is largely what the constitutional militia movement was intended to further, and it has had some success, most of it without much attention. Of course, the Minuteman Project(s) have been spectacularly successful and moving border security to the forefront of political debate, despite the usual problems with misbehaving volunteers. Sometimes militia can embarrass officials into doing better jobs (and sometimes worse, as the border fence fiascos are showing).

Part of the problem with this and other discussions is that there is a lot more militia taking place than most people realize, because they use other names for most of it. That is why I continually remind people that the word, properly used, means any defense activity, not just conventional infantry combat operations. That is one kind of militia, at a high level of activity, but reporting a crime is militia, as is scouting, neighborhood watch, or volunteer fire departments. Even merely obeying laws is militia, at a low level of activity.

Militia in the United States has declined because the perceived threat declined, which reduced political support for the discipline that was needed to keep it going. The Swiss are to be commended for how they have sustained it, but they have had some convincing threats like Nazi Germany and the prospect for the Soviet invasion of Europe to maintain political support. They have also done a good job of weaving militia into the fabric of society and culture in a way that makes participation fun. The Swiss aren't distracted as much by things like Sunday football on TV. The national sport is shooting competitions. We in the U.S. have taken the path to social disintegration and "bowling alone".

However, we are now confronted with new and greater threats than we have ever faced in the past. They range from public corruption to foreign terrorists, are multiplying and growing too rapidly for public institutions to recognize or respond to them. We have allowed ourselves to become lulled into a false sense of complacency at a bad time, and the looming threats are well beyond the competence of government -- largely because, as Ronald Reagan said, more wisely than most people realized at the time, government is the problem.

Most people are still not conscious of these threats, despite plenty of information about them in the public arena. We are not getting the kind of leadership most people want before they will choose to think about things that will disturb their comfort, and most public figures don't want to disturb the public mind for fear of things like economic depression, civil disorder, or losing elections. The result has been dereliction that is nearly treasonous in its potential impact, doing nothing and hoping disaster doesn't come on one's own watch. Our public officials, the ones who aren't corrupt or abusive, are just intent on running out the clock until their retirement, and avoiding criticism.

Part of the problem with the constitutional militia movement has been that most of the leading activists have been veterans of NCO rank, whose training for combat has not prepared them to make things like investigating public corruption a priority. Most veterans of officer rank have preferred to make their efforts in fields like law or education.

However, rather than disparaging those who have become active for failing to do even more, or doing it better, critics should ask what they could have done to make the movement more successful at reviving the constitutional militia system the Founders envisioned. (As for comments like those of Washington, the main problem with some militia was that they were green. When they got more experience they performed better, as at Saratoga or Cowpens. And the Army was nothing more than militia that had signed up for a fixed term of service, for a promised salary, and were subject to being hung for desertion if they failed to make a formation. There is nothing like a noose to focus the mind.)

In the meantime, I do what I can to try to prepare as many people as I can to meet the threats I foresee. Consider this a militia call-up.

 

[Stagger Lee]

there is a lot more militia taking place than most people realize, because they use other names for most of it. That is why I continually remind people that the word, properly used, means any defense activity, not just conventional infantry combat operations. That is one kind of militia, at a high level of activity, but reporting a crime is militia, as is scouting, neighborhood watch, or volunteer fire departments.

Not only is it an insult to lump all of the decent Americans who do these things in with the cammo-clad Walter-Mitty whack jobs, by labeling them all militia, it's disingenuous to try to bootstrap the militia goobs up to credibility by implying that they're as credible and good for the community as a volunteer firefighter or a scout leader. I can assure you that there are worlds of difference between the people who are serving the communities and the wanna-be pretend soldier who serves no one but his ego and imagination.

And even the Minutemen object to being labeled a "militia" group. That has been used against them very successfully, and most people associated with the Minutemen will be among the most strenuous objectors. They're regular people trying to do something about a very real problem, as opposed to your actual "militia" nutbars who are just playing an adult version of the "soldier" games that we all played when we were little kids. The fact that they now have real guns doesn't make it any less a pretend game, and unlike all of the examples that you tried to tie them to above, they have NO connection to endorsement from any state or local community leaders. If my county commissioners here ever publicly recognized any sort of private militia group, I'd make it my #1 project to see to it that those commissioners were ousted next election, if not sooner.

Jon, I still can't figure out why you think we need to play this pretend militia game. Like other militia advocates, you appear to by trying to solve nonexistent problems with an inappropriate solution.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Good post by Vanya from another thread:

Anyone engaged in activity defending the community is engaged in militia, and that activity is properly called just "militia" (not "the" militia or "a" militia).

clap-trap

Yes, this is clap-trap. "Militia" is a noun. Period. It refers to a group of people:

Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
(from Merriam-Webster)
It's been used in this thread in all these senses; all are correct. But it doesn't refer to something called "defense activity." It's a noun. Literate 18th-century people, such as the guys who wrote the Constitution, knew the difference between nouns and verbs, and I suspect they'd have cringed at a term like "defense activity."

Sort of the way I do when the weatherman talks about "thunderstorm activity" -- it's pretentious, and it gives me no more information than if he just said "thunderstorms."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Militia in the United States has declined because the perceived threat declined,

Jon,
The militia declined because our society and government changed and matured. We are a great people but we are not Swiss or German. We like our independence and we don't like a regiemented military society. We serve when we need to and we serve well but we don't like living in fear. As my old platoon sergeant said over thirty years ago. We soldiers serve so "civilians will have better things to do." The militia was a necessary burden in 1790. It isn't today.

As Stagger Lee asked, why do you wish to manufacture a need where there is none? There must be more at work here?

BTW Impressive Credentials!

 

[copenhagen]

Not only is it an insult to lump all of the decent Americans who do these things in with the cammo-clad Walter-Mitty whack jobs, by labeling them all militia, it's disingenuous to try to bootstrap the militia goobs up to credibility by implying that they're as credible and good for the community as a volunteer firefighter or a scout leader. I can assure you that there are worlds of difference between the people who are serving the communities and the wanna-be pretend soldier who serves no one but his ego and imagination.

Stagger, I don't know about where you are from . . . , but where I'm from.. the good ole' boys and girls are something to be proud of.

TN Gent, that pretty much sums up my response to your post as well. I have trusted my friends and neighbors in SC with my life the same as I have trusted the Marine to my left or to my right with my life. We have a bond and we are neighbors, . . . we are gentlemen and women. We are accustomed to hard times, and we pull through. We take care of each other. The picture you showed? Well, like I told Stagger, I don't know where you are from... but they sure aren't like that where I'm from.

We soldiers serve so "civilians will have better things to do." The militia was a necessary burden in 1790. It isn't today.

In my humble view, that's like saying having Police means that you don't need a firearm in your home for home defense.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, like I told Stagger, I don't know where you are from... but they sure ain't like that where I'm from.

Good for you. I'm glad but I think you misunderstand my post. My neighbors aren't bad people but they are not soldiers and don't want to be. If they saw a burglar coming in my house they would call the cops and help us out if we need it. But they aren't militia material. Things have changed.

As they look back to this utopian past, members of the new militia movement draw upon it for justification for what they do. Their actions are legal--indeed, worthy of estimation--because they merely continue this long (perceived) tradition. What they do is true to the spirit of the Founders, unlike the perverted or corrupted actions of government agencies like the FBI or the BATF. They are merely guardians of their own (and our) liberties.

And yet, when the rose-colored glasses are taken off, it appears that their claims to a political/philosophical inheritance are not particularly strong. Service in the historical militia was a burden rather than a right through much of its early history. As Radical Whig Ideology gained adherents in the colonies in the eighteenth century, many colonists became convinced that a strong militia did in fact guarantee liberty. But the strong militia they conceived of was not an anarchic, individually-based collection of arms-bearing volunteers, but rather the community in arms, hierarchical in nature, subservient to authority and to the law.

As the country grew more populous, its security could be guaranteed by forces smaller than the men provided by compulsory militia service; as a result, first the states then finally the federal government released from the burdens of service all those who chose not to participate. Henceforth, the militia would be voluntary, in what would become the National Guard.

What members of the new militia movement desire is the right to form voluntary militia units, but units without the responsibilities, duties, or safeguards by which the National Guard is governed. Though the history of the militia/National Guard in our country has largely been one of subservience to proper authorities, members of the new militia movement seek and/or claim to be answerable to no one but themselves. American society has traditionally looked askance at such groups, particularly when they are heavily armed.

We don't need militias today just good citizens

 

[copenhagen]

What members of the new militia movement desire is the right to form voluntary militia units, but units without the responsibilities, duties, or safeguards by which the National Guard is governed. Though the history of the militia/National Guard in our country has largely been one of subservience to proper authorities, members of the new militia movement seek and/or claim to be answerable to no one but themselves.

What a shame that some still believe in answering to themselves...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What a shame that some still believe in answering to themselves...

Thats OK if they only affect themselves. But when they carry guns and purport to be the law then they have to answer to a competent elected authority. Otherwise they are not a good thing for the nation but a threat.

 

[ak74]

i am all for militias, its what our founding fathers wanted and what we should have with every violation of our liberties a new irate Patriot is born. i am thinking about joing the militia my self since i dont feel fighting countries that havent been attacking us, instead i would rather defend my rights as a American.

the only justification for war is self defense, not preimptive war.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Militia is defense activity

By the very definition provided by "Tennessee Gentlemen", the Merriam Webster dictionary correctly defines it as "military service", which is also the way the term militia is translated from the Swiss Constitution into English.

First, "military service" is an activity. For a more complete discussion of the etymology see Militia v. Inimicitia. The Romans used other terms for those engaged in militia.

Second, the leading Founders were Latin-literate. Every educated person was expected to learn the language. They were well aware of the Latin meaning, and could not have used it without having that meaning in mind, even if they may have also meant those engaged in the activity.

Third, the English idiom of the 18th century, much of which lingers to our time, was to often use the same word for an activity and those engaged in it. Indeed, most words for activities were also used for those engaged in the activity. Some examples are discussed in 'How do constitutional militia activists use the word "militia"?' and in a blog article. Today people tend to want to use different words for activities and those engaged in them, but in the 18th century, before there were dictionaries to highlight the distinction, people commonly used words with multiple meanings to convey each of several meanings in a single thought.

Fourth, although "military service" is a common translation, that does not capture the meaning, because the ancient Romans used the same people in the same capacity not only for military operations, but for law enforcement, suppressing insurrections, and disaster response. All of that was included in what they meant by "military service". But today that is somewhat misleading, because today we commonly use different personnel for each function. Therefore, a better translation for our time is "defense activity".

Fifth, if you substitute the phrase "defense activity" wherever the Founders used the term "militia", you will soon realize that what they wrote make more sense, in the context of what else they were saying.

All this is basic linguistic analysis of the kind linguists use in figuring out the meanings of expressions in foreign languages. For us 18th century English is a foreign language.

I object to all this nonsense about using the people you try to disparage to stigmatize a term with general meaning that is used four times in the unamended Constitution, and still appears in our current statutes. Even if your characterization of them were valid, which I dispute, the term doesn't belong to them. It belongs to all of us who have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and who use the term as it was meant in the Constitution. I object to efforts to try to hijack the term to try to discredit defense of the Constitution, by taking advantage of every opportunity to apply it to seemingly unsavory characters. I suspect those who do so of engaging in a deliberate campaign of disinformation, intended to suppress the critics of what is becoming an increasingly tyrannical government, who fear the people waking up to their role as militia, and insisting on constitutional compliance.

Now are there any disinformation agents in this forum, particularly any that are being funded or directed by the ADL? It is common practice for them to plant provocateurs or agents of chaos in forums like this one, as well as gun rights organizations everywhere.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

By the very definition provided by "Tennessee Gentlemen", the Merriam Webster dictionary correctly defines it as "military service", which is also the way the term militia is translated from the Swiss Constitution into English.

Jon, I don't know how you can come to this conclusion after reading that definition. The militia is a noun not a verb

Now are there any disinformation agents in this forum, particularly any that are being funded or directed by the ADL? It is common practice for them to plant provocateurs or agents of chaos in forums like this one, as well as gun rights organizations everywhere.

Is this who you think I and others who disagree with you are? Paid Secret Agents of the ADL? This is tin foil hat stuff, Jon you are above that my friend. Anyway, I'm not Jewish

I object to all this nonsense about using the people you try to disparage to stigmatize a term with general meaning that is used four times in the unamended Constitution, and still appears in our current statutes.

We disparage them because many of us think they give gun owners a bad name. Sure it's in the Constitution, so are Letters of Marque, but we have a Navy now and don't use them anymore. Again the problem we have when we take history out of context.

From your link posted:

However, we must also recognize that this failure goes all the way back to 1792, and that such organizing and training are, therefore, left to the people themselves, in the form of independent local militias, which they have a constitutional duty to maintain in a high state of preparedness, even if they get little support from the authorities, and indeed, especially if they get opposition from the authorities.

This stuff is dangerous, not conductive to orderly civilized society, and a threat to our freedom. This is not a constitutional militia but more closely related to vigilantes and lynch squads. Having a group like this in my community would scare me to death and I would probably take up arms against them! I elect my government and all those who represent that law answer to those officials I elect. Not some self appointed posse.

You're a learned man Jon, but you are just not right about this stuff IMHO.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Re: Militia is defense activity

The militia is a noun not a verb

An activity is a noun. Review your English grammar.

Is this who you think I and others who disagree with you are? Paid Secret Agents of the ADL?

I suspect it of you, "Tennessee Gentleman", because you are constantly quoting ADL propaganda and disinformation. Pitcavage is a hack hired by the ADL to put a pseudo-scholarly gloss on that. Others on this forum have warned you about him.

Sure it's in the Constitution, so are Letters of Marque, but we have a Navy now and don't use them anymore.

Then you don't understand what letters of marque and reprisal are. See Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They are intended to authorize a measured retaliation for warlike acts short of an all-out declaration of war. Going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda should have been authorized by letters of marque and reprisal, issued to the President. Whereas going in to Iraq required a declaration of war, also issued to the President. Doesn't have to be issued to a privateer.

But don't feel too bad. I once interrogated a lawyer who had been nominated for the federal bench and who had been given the job of heading the legal team for the "war on terror" in the State Department while he was waiting for a Senate hearing. He admitted he didn't know anything about it.

This stuff is dangerous, not conductive to orderly civilized society, and a threat to our freedom. This is not a constitutional militia but more closely related to vigilantes and lynch squads. Having a group like this in my community would scare me to death and I would probably take up arms against them! I elect my government and all those who represent that law answer to those officials I elect. Not some self appointed posse.

No, a vigilante or lynch mob are people who improperly assume the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Militia is about conducting investigations, making arrests, and delivering the suspect to the nearest magistrate of competent jurisdiction for arraignment. It is doing exactly what good law enforcement officers are supposed to do. Just not doing it as a paid job. The laws of every state provide for it. The entire point of having militia being "well regulated" is that they do function as good soldiers or law enforcement agents, knowing the law and enforcing it.

You sound like one of the many smug citizens who have never had a tense encounter with officials or had them target you for oppression. You should get out more and meet the many victims of legal abuse. There is even a term in clinical psychology now, "legal abuse syndrome". You probably won't have to look far. There are many of them in almost any community, and not all of them are poor or of a minority group. You should inquire into where the money comes from that your officials are receiving. There is a good chance that you will find your local officials are protecting narcotrafficking, or getting kickbacks on contracts, or otherwise engaged in corrupt activities that tend to result in them abusing the rights of people. See A Lawyer's View of the Justice System, Joseph H. Delaney. Also see The Jury and Consensus Government in Mid-Eighteenth-Century America, William E. Nelson, who explains the way militia once operated.

As someone who has actually visited many militia units across the country, I have found that very few of the guys who show up at musters could be reasonably depicted the way you try to. Less than 5%, and those tend not to stick with it for more than a couple of musters. Most activists are mature, combat-trained veterans, and many are former special forces. Many are also veterans of police departments, and a high proportion of those in states with state guards, are members of the state guard of their states. The former cops are especially interesting, because most of them quit law enforcement because they found, as one former Texas DPS officer put it, "I was working with guys who were worse than the people we were putting away." They are not mere "bubbas", despite the disinformation campaign trying to spread that depiction. Most would be a credit to any military or law enforcement organization, and left those organizations because of the corruption and abuse they found in them. They do, however, tend to lack enough guys who were officers in the military, to provide the kind of mission leadership needed. The result is much like one would expect if one put a bunch of enlisted men on a battlefield with no officers. It is not their fault. What is needed are persons with officer skillsets to join them.

 

[S832]

Giving "militias" the power to arrest people, clearly a great idea .