Posse comitatus coming to an end?
- Thread starter divemedic
- Start date
I suppose that if you think you can just take what you like (about the constitution) and leave the rest (cafeteria constitutionalism, anyone?), you might be correct.alloy said:
If however, you think there might be merit in pointing out the fallacies of certain popular thinking, there might be something to this thread.
As the OP, I ask you this:
Can you name 10 times in history where a government began using its military against its own citizens, and that military intervention was to the benefit of the citizens?
I cannot think of one. There are only three outcomes (or a mixture of 2 or more of the three) in history:
1 the military is used to oppress the citizens
2 the military is rendered useless for its primary mission of defending the citizens from external threats, as it becomes preoccupied with the interior mission
3 the military initiates a coup, and takes over
I think this is very germane to firearms, since we have an incoming administration that is for "common sense gun laws" and is in possession of a tool box full of the Patriot Act, military forces that can be used civilly, and a host of other powers that were created during the GWOT.
Can you name 10 times in history where a government began using its military against its own citizens, and that military intervention was to the benefit of the citizens?
I cannot think of one. There are only three outcomes (or a mixture of 2 or more of the three) in history:
1 the military is used to oppress the citizens
2 the military is rendered useless for its primary mission of defending the citizens from external threats, as it becomes preoccupied with the interior mission
3 the military initiates a coup, and takes over
I think this is very germane to firearms, since we have an incoming administration that is for "common sense gun laws" and is in possession of a tool box full of the Patriot Act, military forces that can be used civilly, and a host of other powers that were created during the GWOT.
The original link has expired, so I'm not sure what the article addressed. I'm guessing it didn't refer to an Army War College report stating that military troops may be needed to control unrest due to the present economic crisis. Martial Law? Interesting times.
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html
Perhaps.
A link here... http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=345090>1=28103&silentchk=1&
edit: my bad about the other article i posted for a second, i misread the rifle quantity.
A link here... http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=345090>1=28103&silentchk=1&edit: my bad about the other article i posted for a second, i misread the rifle quantity.
Last edited:
The original link was expired. So I did not get a chance to read it. I foresee the major military role being to enhance surveillance capabilities. Our current capabilities in Iraq have proven to the enemy we can operate 24/7 and that night time is owned by us. Or to quote a crewmember of a Specter gunship.. "you can run but you just die tired. Same for the border and urban areas.
rwilson452
New member
I suspect that crewmember stole that line from Carlos Hathcock.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Not against them but the National Guard has helped out many a community devastated by natural disaster. Also, the military has been used successfully to monitor and track/apprehend drug runners and illegal immigrants.
Using the military for internal operations like the Corps of Engineers was used in the 1930s can be beneficial in certain extreme times. Hey, it was the military research folks (ARPA) that invented the Internet (with apologies to Al Gore
)The problem with using the military in many other countries is 1) The military isn't subordinate to civilian authority and/or 2) the civilian authority is not democratically elected and accountable to it's people. We don't have that problem.
Not against them but the National Guard has helped out many a community devastated by natural disaster.
Not the same as using military force. Using them purely as a manpower pool to fill sandbags is different from using Federal troops as law enforcement.
Also, the military has been used successfully to monitor and track/apprehend drug runners and illegal immigrants.
The war on drugs is more of an infringement than a benefit.
Using the military for internal operations like the Corps of Engineers was used in the 1930s can be beneficial in certain extreme times. Hey, it was the military research folks (ARPA) that invented the Internet (with apologies to Al Gore)
Corps of engineers is more like a Federal Construction program than military. The Corps of engineers is the military paying civilians to operate dredgers and build bridges and dikes. Not the same as military force being used against citizens.
The problem with using the military in many other countries is 1) The military isn't subordinate to civilian authority and/or 2) the civilian authority is not democratically elected and accountable to it's people. We don't have that problem.
That is my point. Once you begin using the military to control the population and to enforce law, the military is less subordinate to civilian control. As far as "democratically elected," I believe that Cuba has elections, as did Iraq.
Not the same as using military force. Using them purely as a manpower pool to fill sandbags is different from using Federal troops as law enforcement.
Also, the military has been used successfully to monitor and track/apprehend drug runners and illegal immigrants.
The war on drugs is more of an infringement than a benefit.
Using the military for internal operations like the Corps of Engineers was used in the 1930s can be beneficial in certain extreme times. Hey, it was the military research folks (ARPA) that invented the Internet (with apologies to Al Gore)
Corps of engineers is more like a Federal Construction program than military. The Corps of engineers is the military paying civilians to operate dredgers and build bridges and dikes. Not the same as military force being used against citizens.
The problem with using the military in many other countries is 1) The military isn't subordinate to civilian authority and/or 2) the civilian authority is not democratically elected and accountable to it's people. We don't have that problem.
That is my point. Once you begin using the military to control the population and to enforce law, the military is less subordinate to civilian control. As far as "democratically elected," I believe that Cuba has elections, as did Iraq.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Not on topic but just for the record, I don't think the war on drugs is an infringement of any of our rights.
Not sure I see that at all. How you use the military does not impact who they answer to. With the kind of asymetrical terrorist threat we face today local LEOs aren't equipped to fight that and we might need our military to deal with parts of that threat. Posse Comitatus was passed because of Reconstruction and the military governments in place in the south after the civil war. Not an issue now.
Bottomline, sometimes military intervention is needed and beneficial and that includes law enforcement. Nevetheless, our military answers to our elected leaders and using them for certain aspects of LE will not change that.
Did you mean Iran? Cuba's elections are shams but I would argue that those in the Iraqi parliament were elected by the majority of the population in a legitimate election per their people's will.
Katrina showed all i need to know about leaving local government to deal with large emergencies. In the modern times(as in all times most likely) the gov't is damned if they do, damned if they dont.
Nationwide Martial Law to enforce an Obama AWB? Can't see it, but i hope the gov't knows something about logistics and probabilities of emergencies and terrorism that i dont know. Seems they might, we havent had an attack lately. A few million folks needing drinking water or food or medical...would require something we obviously dont seem ready for. Maybe they have learned a few things running Iraq for a few years.
Nationwide Martial Law to enforce an Obama AWB? Can't see it, but i hope the gov't knows something about logistics and probabilities of emergencies and terrorism that i dont know. Seems they might, we havent had an attack lately. A few million folks needing drinking water or food or medical...would require something we obviously dont seem ready for. Maybe they have learned a few things running Iraq for a few years.
I am not buying that. The first WTC attack was February 26,1993. There was not another incident of international terrorism on US soil until September 11, 2001, more than 8 1/2 years later.
The fact that we have gone 7 years 4 months without another proves exactly nothing about the effectiveness of the Government in preventing attacks.
Divemedic, fine. I shouldnt have answered this thread. If you want to hyperventilate into a paper bag and worry about the inevitability of REX84 and Cable Splicer during Obamas transition into the White House, fine.
Even as cynical as i am, which is pretty cynical...im not gonna argue semantics of each sentence because you choose to think Bush suspended a law so that Obama could take away my sporter.
Good day, i have more positive thoughts to think this New Years Day than martial law being used to suppress Americans.
Even as cynical as i am, which is pretty cynical...im not gonna argue semantics of each sentence because you choose to think Bush suspended a law so that Obama could take away my sporter.
Good day, i have more positive thoughts to think this New Years Day than martial law being used to suppress Americans.
My, my aren't we a bit sensitive.
You said that the fact that we have not had an attack in 8 years prove that the Govt is keeping us safe from the mean old terrorists. All I am saying is that a negative can't be used to prove a positive.
Kind of like saying that no one has broken into my house and my door is unlocked proves that closing the door is enough to deter a burglar.
BTW- I don't think anyone did it so Obama could do anything. What I am saying is that it is inthe nature of governments to use the tools which they have been given, and that they are usually used in unintended and over reaching ways. I will have a good time laughing at those who lauded the powers handed the Presidency during the last term, when they are inevitably misused in the next.
You said that the fact that we have not had an attack in 8 years prove that the Govt is keeping us safe from the mean old terrorists. All I am saying is that a negative can't be used to prove a positive.
Kind of like saying that no one has broken into my house and my door is unlocked proves that closing the door is enough to deter a burglar.
BTW- I don't think anyone did it so Obama could do anything. What I am saying is that it is inthe nature of governments to use the tools which they have been given, and that they are usually used in unintended and over reaching ways. I will have a good time laughing at those who lauded the powers handed the Presidency during the last term, when they are inevitably misused in the next.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Al,
You are right this is getting off topic.
I say that using the military for certain parts of law enforcement is not a worry to me and would I think, be beneficial in some instances. I do not fear the military in the US as long as they answer to elected civilian authority.
The terrorist threat we now face today might well exceed the capabilites of local LE (even some national LE) and so the military might be well suited to help meet that threat.
A pertinent aside, as a college intern with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement many years ago I studied and wrote several briefs detailing how FDLE might use the military to help with fighting the drug trafficking that was getting real bad. Some years later, I was told my briefs were used to ask for military radar aircraft to be used while training to track incoming flying drug dealers. Win win for all and Reagan signed an EO to make it happen.
You are right this is getting off topic.
I say that using the military for certain parts of law enforcement is not a worry to me and would I think, be beneficial in some instances. I do not fear the military in the US as long as they answer to elected civilian authority.
The terrorist threat we now face today might well exceed the capabilites of local LE (even some national LE) and so the military might be well suited to help meet that threat.
A pertinent aside, as a college intern with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement many years ago I studied and wrote several briefs detailing how FDLE might use the military to help with fighting the drug trafficking that was getting real bad. Some years later, I was told my briefs were used to ask for military radar aircraft to be used while training to track incoming flying drug dealers. Win win for all and Reagan signed an EO to make it happen.
Last edited: