Posse Comitatus Weakened [From TSCM-L]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Peter Thoenen <eol1 () yahoo com>
Date: February 19, 2007 4:50:29 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Posse Comitatus Weakened [From TSCM-L]
Reply-To: eol1 () yahoo com

Dave,

Not sure how many of the list readers on here follow John's TSCM-L list
but a particular recent thread there might be of interest to them:

> From: reginald_curtis () hotmail com
> To: "TSCM-L Professionals List" <TSCM-L2006 () googlegroups com>
> Subject: [TSCM-L] Posse Comitatus Weakened
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:41:43 -0800
>
> I missed this POSSE COMITATUS development altogether. From today's
> New
> York Times Feb. 19/07-
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html? 
th=&emc=th&pagewanted=pri..
> "EDITORIAL
>
> MAKING MARTIAL LAW EASIER
>
> A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike
> to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of
> night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous
> defense budget bill at the Bush administration's  behest that makes
> it
> easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement
> and declare martial law.
>
> The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but
> important bulwarks of national liberty. One is the doctrine that bars
> military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from
> engaging
> in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law
> after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and
> the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which
> provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentiallly
> limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to
> putting
> down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is
> violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
>
> The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift
> the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to
> restoring
> public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may
> now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a
> natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any
> 'other condition.'
>
> Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public
> airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law
> without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of
> the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House
> nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation's governors.
>
> There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy,
> Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri,
> and
> backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the
> stealty provisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind
> are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate."
>
> THE END
> Reg Curtis/VE9RWC

Was a real good discussion of this back in '05 but yahoo killed the
archives.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com