The Thoughts and Writings of Nancy Salvato
  • Home
  • This Site
  • Analysis
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Links
  • Home

Posse Comitatus

7/21/2015

0 Comments

 
Why are soldiers at recruiting stations unarmed?  Here is an analysis put out by Cato Institute that provides some justification for the practice.  I believe it is time to reconsider, under the present circumstances.  I don't think this is our only concern at this time.  We should be worried about Iran, federal overreach, the blurring of powers between the branches, the erosion of our 1st amendment...some would even say this story is serving as a bright shiny thing because it has completely garnered national attention and so we've taken our eye off the other "balls" in the air.  In any event, if you want to understand and take a position, at least understand the history.

What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role. That reflects America’s traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that’s well-justified.

There are good reasons to resist any push toward domestic militarization.

As one federal court has explained: “Military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation. The Posse Comitatus statute is intended to meet that danger.”

Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, commander of the federal troops helping out in New Orleans, seemed to recognize that danger when he ordered his soldiers to keep their guns pointed down: “This isn’t Iraq,” he said.

Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.

It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That’s what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the report, “While on domestic military missions, combat units are unable to maintain proficiency because these missions provide less opportunity to practice the varied skills required for combat and consequently offer little training value.”

The GAO also concluded that such missions put a serious strain on a military already heavily committed abroad.

American law calls for civilian peace officers to keep the peace, or, failing that, National Guard troops under the command of their state governors. So perhaps we should stop treating the National Guard as if it’s no different than the Army Reserve.
More
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Author

    Nancy Salvato’s education career includes teaching students from pre-k to graduate school.  She has also worked as an administrator in higher education. Her private sector efforts focus on the advancement of constitutional literacy. She attended the National Endowment for the Humanity’s National Academy for Civics & Government, and is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.”

    Archives

    July 2016
    January 2016
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015

    Categories

    All
    1st Amendment
    2nd Amendment
    Activist Judges
    Centralized Government
    Flags
    Gore Vidal
    ISIS
    Marriage License
    Posse Comitatus
    Presidential Election
    William F. Buckley

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.