Listen - Sponsor - Stations


Return Home
Future & Past Guests
Affiliate Syndication
About Bryant McGill
Meet Your Co-Hosts
Friends of McGill Live
Event Photographs
Program Archives
OUR COMMUNITY
Request an Interview
Sponsor Information
Apply to be a Guest
Guestbook & Comments
Contact Us
McGill's Online Works
Featured Treaty Signers
Vision Board
Int'l Photo Journal
Universality of Suffering
Books by Guests
Night Riders Magazine
Xammon Magazine
GUEST WEBSEARCH
Media Links
Top News Stories
World News Archives
Bryant's Official Site
The Goodwill Treaty
McGill Charities
Candle Vigils
Give Yourself
No Secrets, No Fear


Carmen Electra
Michael Jackson
Matt Damon
Montel Williams
Ray Romano
Evander Holyfield
Me & Cheech
Ray Lewis
Boomer



Light a Candle
Heal the World



Interesting World News



Discuss this Article | Post Another Article for Discussion

Bush, Ridge Look at Suspending 1878

Posse Comitatus Act
Will Military Enforce Domestic Law?
July 29, 2002

Amid debate over whether U.S. troops should be used to secure the U.S. border, or deployed in any other domestic capacity in the war against terrorism, the Bush administration will review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

There is considerable confusion both in the public and among lawmakers about what this law actually says and whether any changes in it might be warranted.

"Federal law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress," President Bush said July 16 in the plan he submitted to Congress for the new Department of Homeland Security. "The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how."

The PCA is commonly and falsely believed to forbid the U.S. military from enforcing domestic law in all circumstances. In fact, it forbids it only in some circumstances.

Said Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge on "Fox News Sunday" on July 21, "Well, I think there's been much conversation about that concept, which as you know is called posse comitatus, and that is historically within this country, we do not give our military law-enforcement responsibilities. And I think the discussion, the public discussion, is really about the private discussion that will undoubtedly occur between the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, once his new North American Command is established, because I think it would be very appropriate for the two secretaries to determine what military assets would be available, under what circumstances, to support civilian authorities in the event of another terrorist attack."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful in a very supportive and assisting role even than they have been up to now – providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting people."

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday," "I think it is time to revisit it. Back after Oklahoma City, former Sen. Sam Nunn and I introduced legislation that would moderately alter the Posse Comitatus – let me be precise – allow, for example, the military, that has expertise in weapons of mass destruction, to be called in. Let's say you had word that there was something going on in one of the tunnels in Amtrak, or you had some major event where they thought there may have been a weapon of mass destruction involved. Right now, when you call in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot to kill, if in fact they were approaching the weapon, and so on."

The primary sentence of the Posse Comitatus Act, as amended since 1878, now says, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." "Posse comitatus" means "the power or force of the county," according to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), and refers to any group empowered to enforce domestic law.

Contrary to popular belief, the PCA does not presently forbid all U.S. military units from enforcing domestic laws. The plain language of the law does not cover the Navy, Marine Corps or National Guard. "The PCA expressly applies only to the Army and Air Force," wrote Matthew Carlton Hammond in an article in the Washington University Law Quarterly (Summer 1997). "Congress did not mention the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or National Guard in the PCA; accordingly, the PCA does not limit them. However, the Department of Defense has extended by regulation the PCA's prohibitions to the Navy and Marine Corps."

The phrase "under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" and the ambiguity of "to execute the laws" have been interpreted to allow numerous uses of the military to enforce domestic law since the PCA was enacted. Traditionally, a "constitutional" exception to the PCA has been interpreted broadly, said Hammond. "The exception permits military action to protect federal property and functions, to prevent loss of life, and to restore public order when local authorities cannot control a situation," he wrote. Congress already has explicitly carved out exceptions to the PCA for drug interdiction and for responses to biological and chemical incidents. According to Hammond, no one has ever faced criminal prosecution under the law.

Writing in the Spring 2002 edition of Parameters, a highly respected military journal published by the U.S. Army War College, Chris Quillen wrote, "Almost any presidential decision or congressional legislation can circumvent Posse Comitatus rather easily." Noted Hammond, "Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both used the military to replace striking federal employees. In 1970, President Nixon sent 30,000 federal troops to replace striking postal workers in New York, and in 1981, President Reagan replaced striking air-traffic controllers."

There is also one relatively recent example of the use of the American military to restore order after a major domestic disturbance. U.S. Marines detained suspects and performed searches during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, even though some involved believed that they were violating U.S. law. They did so because Marine Corps doctrine – the theory behind conducting operations – told them that this was the only way to restore order. Wrote Thomas E. Ricks in his well-known "Making the Corps" (1997), "In Los Angeles, Maj. [Timothy] Reeves notes, when faced with violating doctrine or violating the law, some Marines chose the latter course, and detained suspects and conducted warrantless searches."

Given the confusion over the PCA, Quillen said that the military might react inappropriately to an emergency situation. He called for clarifying the law and federal regulations.

"The likely federal response to a nuclear incident currently suffers from conflicting and confusing guidance that is dependent on too many external factors to be timely and therefore effective," he wrote. "In the end, however, the federal response would be almost totally dependent on the Defense Department for its resolution. Given the legal limits placed on DOD's actions, this situation is a disaster waiting to happen."

William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation, who has advised the Marines on what he calls Fourth Generation Warfare – including urban conflicts involving non-state actors such as terrorists – said he thinks the National Guard should deal with domestic emergencies as far as possible and that the military should stay out of policing the homeland. Further restricting the PCA would lead to "a concern about civil liberties," he said. But in addition, "the military would be extraordinarily ineffective at the job. All top-down approaches will fail."

To maintain order domestically in the long term in the face of potential terrorist attacks or other calamities, Lind said, the United States needs to rebuild its tradition of local self-reliance and look to local police forces and civilian preparedness.

Link to Article Source


Universal 7 Radio | gtbroadcasting.com | GlobalEnquirer.com | Comment


  News in NWO
  1. Big Brother Will Be Watching You
  2. Pentagon Plans Computer System that Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans
  3. Artifact No Go Logo
  4. Russia to Create Different Kind of New World Order
  5. Big Brother Average American Caught on Camera 8 - 10 Times a Day
  6. Traffic Cameras Could Help Solve Crimes
  7. 1984 Privacy Issues Comes Under Tech Gun
  8. Airports Poised to Begin Traveler ID Program
  9. Big Brother May Expand SpyTraffic Cams Throughout DC
  10. Senators FBI Grabbing More Wiretap
  11. The Hidden Data In Your Drivers License
  12. Britain Leads Way In Eroding Privacy
  13. Chirac Backs Globalisation Tax
  14. Delaware Police Compile Photo Database Of
  15. Patriot Act Setback
  16. NASA Plans To Read Terrorists Minds At Airports
  17. Camps for Citizens Ashcrofts Hellish Vision
  18. Body Trains Capable of Embalming 800 an Hour
  19. Japan Launches Compulsory ID Network Amid
  20. Bush, Ridge Look at Suspending 1878
  21. Banks Share Private Consumer Information
  22. Foundations in Place For Martial Law
  23. National ID Card An American Horror Story
  24. Local Governments to Inspect Inside Homes
  25. Global Eye - Strange Fruit
  26. Ashcroft Touts Citizen Vigilance Plan - Tries to Reassure TIPS Wont Morph into Operation Snoops
  27. Sen Joseph Biden Backs Letting Soldiers
  28. Will Military Enforce US Domestic Laws
  29. Justice Dept Forges Ahead With Tips, Despite Ban by House Majority Leader Dick Armey
  30. Globalists Glum as Lawmakers Reject
  31. Postal Officials Change Stance on Operation TIPS
  32. Switch on for UK State Snooping
  33. Postal Service Wont Join Peeping Tom Program
  34. Who Says the Communists Lost
  35. Globalist Senators Back-Stab US Troops
  36. Citizen Spying Elicits 1984 Fears
  37. A Nation of Peeping Toms
  38. Anger at War Crimes Court Compromise
  39. UN Agrees to US Peacekeeper
  40. Your Confidential Medical Records Are an Open Book Without Your Say-So
  41. Spy Cams Launched in Virginia
  42. Forget Big Brother -
  43. Europeans Blast US Over Global Court
  44. US Will Not Join World Court
  45. US Challenges New Hague Court146s Right to Judge
  46. Euro-police to Patrol UK
  47. Dark Side Of Supermarket Savings Cards
  48. Australia Joins Global Court
  49. Let Europe Rise
  50. Europe Police to Spy on all Emails
  51. UN Wants to Register Worlds Children at Birth
  52. Ashcroft New FBI Plan Protects Rights
  53. FBI Given More Latitude
  54. Ashcroft Announces New Snooping Power
  55. Big Brother in Your Mailbox
  56. How the Feds Steer Your Career
  57. Big Brother Is Watching, Listening
  58. How Big Brother Plans Your Career
  59. Sex Issues Prove Divisive At UN Childrens Summit
  60. Press Coverage Of Implanted Chips Distorted
  61. Bill Would Push Drivers License With Chip
  62. Senators Blame Oil Firms for Price Spikes
  63. Secret US Court OKd 934 Warrants
  64. Surfing the Net and Getting Wet
  65. The Latest Way to Pay is at our Fingertips
  66. Americans Dependence on Government Empowers Feds
  67. Be Afraid - The New World Orders Fascist Pedigree
  68. Chemtrails - Peanut Butter And Barium Sandwiches
  69. Bring Forth Martial Law
  70. The Fourth Reich Nazi Symbols Creeping Up in
  71. Nobel Laureate Thinks Gobally On Currency
  America General
  Asian Anxiety
  Cosmic
  Earth Changes
  Espionage
  Europe
  Financial
  Genetics
  Global
  Mars
  Mexico
  Mideast
  Nukes
  NWO
  Persecution
  Precious Metals
  Prophetic
  Signs
  Strange Stuff
  Technology
  Terrorism
  The Pale Horse
  Unrest
  Yellowstone

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in its efforts to advance the understanding of environmental issues and sustainability, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml



Where applicable, U.S. & Int'l Copyrights by Bryant McGill. All Rights Reserved. Notices and Fair Use. McGill Trademark Licensed from the House of Gill, Corp Sole.