You, and whose army: Posse Comitatus

The Northern Command may propose an active-duty force on American soil to provide relief during major disasters.

Military May Propose an Active-Duty Force for Relief Efforts

Active-duty troops may conduct relief operations without the federal government being in charge, but the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits active-duty forces from conducting law enforcement missions on American soil.

Pentagon and military officials say that federal troops could not have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans without breaking the Posse Comitatus law.

That would not be a problem with the standby force as long as it was kept to logistical and relief operations and the mission, in particular law-enforcement duties, remained with the National Guard reporting to the state governors. [NYT]

By law, this force would be exclusively involved in relief efforts and not law enforcement. If that's the case, why should the military handle this project at all?

Comments

[steve duncan]

How does a soldier with a sidearm ignore a crime in progress? Private York just stands there, directing a team of military bulldozer operators or something, and says "Hmmmm, that Posse Comitatus dictates I allow this rape to continue whilst we search for a local policeman." This obviously needs sorted out.

[John Protevi]

Again with the rape scenarios (I was going to say 'fantasies')! Rapes don't just occur in disaster zones. If half the people fascinated by the idea of rape in New Orleans would work against it whenever and wherever it occurs, then maybe something might budge on the problem.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I think Steve's larger point is that it's impossible to send the military into a disaster zone without their very presence constituting some kind of law enforcement by federal troops.

Once the feds can send in the military, you've got de facto law enforcement. If they're really serious about the "no law enforcement" constraint, they should send some other kind of unarmed federal agent.

[steve duncan]

Oh please John, I picked rape for no other reason than it's a rather easily interrupted crime as opposed to say, oh, 6 guys with shotguns looting a bank. Rape is not "fascinating" except to maybe those clinicians studying it or a select few perpetrators committing the deed for perverse reasons beyond sick, misogynistic violence. Maybe you could move beyond my example and address the point of my post.

[Steven]

"...If they're really serious about the "no law enforcement" constraint, they should send some other kind of unarmed federal agent".

Now what serious person would go into any situation like that unarmed?

Well maybe, liberals -- now that wcould be a nice plus for republians, and it might even turn some liberals (once shot) into republians.

[rob helpy-chalk]

Now what serious person would go into any situation like that unarmed?

Me. I would go into that situation unarmed. As a nice series of articles at Reason shows, there was no serious violence in New Orleans. This fits the pattern of most major disasters. People pull together in times of crises.

I'm nurturing a theory that "the kind of asshole who feels he has to carry a gun everyplace" is a distinct personality type that can be identified using empirically robust methods. Moreover, being "the kind of asshole who feels he has to carry a gun everywhere" is a major causal factor in "getting your ass shot."

I would walk into a disaster zone unarmed simply to avoid the risk of becoming the kind of asshole who feels he has to carry a gun everywhere.

[suzib]

Why a military force? What ever happened to the Peace Corps? Or, perhaps a new version that was dedicated to helping in disaster zones, ecological accidents habitat for humanity or educating preschool children? Why not a two year national service requirement where you could pick your kind of humanitarian service once you finished your education?

[Gary Sugar]

"why should the military handle this project at all?"

Uhm, because Republicans are now so completely militarist they don't have any other ideas?

[steve duncan]

Peace Corp? You missed the memo. Touchy-feely is out, kicking ass is in. If you don't like the 82nd Airborne in your back yard you can share a cell with Jose Padilla.

[togolosh]

An idea I've been mulling over for a decade or so which probably has zero chance of implementation:

Create a dedicated peacekeeping force within the US military consisting of volunteers from within the existing branches. The force would have two main jobs - first to assist FEMA with domestic disaster relief by bringing existing military logistics and medical assets to bear on the problem, as well as providing emergency policing services (which would require adjustments to posse comitatus). The second task would be working on international peacekeeping missions, specifically in providing guidance to the war fighters on how to adapt their behavior so as to become effective peacekeepers and peacemakers. The peacekeeping force would consist of people with active duty military experience (e.g. you serve two years of a four year enlistment on regular duty before you're eligible for peacekeeper training).

The US is inevitably going to end up doing peacekeeping and peacemaking missions in the post cold war world, so we might as well get good at it. By drawing from the existing branches of the service the peacekeepers will be able to work with them effectively, since they speak the same language and understand how the war fighters are likely to view a given situation. This allows the peacekeepers to anticipate and hopefully head off inappropriate responses (actions appropriate to war but not to peacekeeping) that make things worse rather than better.

[Steven]

"Me. I would go into that situation unarmed"...

Well that is nice, Rob. You can feel good and human about helping people in need -- except when someone is being raped or assaulted...in that case I guess you would just run your liberal mouth --crying out to anyone with a gun: "somebody help her/him", because you sure as hell can't!
That is the wonderful thing about owning a gun - it protects Other People as well as yourself.

Ask and woman or man who has had their life saved, because some asshole did carried a gun, and used it against their attacker, of course that wouldn't be you Rob!

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'm not saying that everyone should be unarmed. The National Guard should be providing for our soldiering needs. The NG answers to the governor.

In practice, Posse Comitatus has been applied "flexibly"--and that's sensible. I don't know what the legal status of the 82nd Airborne in NOLA was, but they were filling a huge need.

What I don't like is the idea of a standing army of federal troops whose mission is explicitly to intervene in American disaster situations. That's just asking for trouble.

[steve duncan]

Steven, maybe we could at least have some proper grammar involved in your rants. It's getting tiresome having two entirely different sets of reasons to dismiss your presence here.

[Stevem]

"Steven, maybe we could at least have some proper grammar involved in your rants".

Ok Steve you win, but you need to understand that it is difficult to own a gun and also be versed in the use of proper grammar!

[Njorl]

Oh please. A bystander shouting "Hey you!" at someone committing a crime will usually make them run like hell even if they have a gun. In those situations where it won't, one guy with a gun usually won't help either.

There is a good reason, though, why soldiers should be armed when sent into disastrous situations. Criminals will assume soldiers they see are armed. Usually that will deter criminal activity. In those cases where it doesn't, the first thing the criminal will do is kill any likely armed people from stealth. Soldiers in these situations have targets painted on them. It is not right to deny them the capacity to defend themselves.

[exgop]

By law, this force would be exclusively involved in relief efforts and not law enforcement. If that's the case, why should the military handle this project at all?

Simple, Lindsay. There is no organization that is more capable of moving the things that are essential to sustaining life in a hostile environment than the U.S. military. The bulk of any modern military is actually set up for providing things like mobile hospitals, water purification systems, food, communications, sanitation, etc. They don't live off the land when they travel, you know...

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Exgop, I agree that the US military has a lot to offer in a disaster. But I'm not comfortable giving the President carte blanche to send troops into my state.

The status quo is a very good compromise--A National Guard that answers to the governor of the state, and a willingness to bend the rules and send federal troops when there's no other alternative.

Of course, we're squandering ouf Guard in Iraq.

[owlmonkey]

"why should the military handle this project at all?"

better logistics skills and equipment than any other organization, and the motivation to keep those skills honed for other reasons. the military forms are incredibly efficient, completely independent of their violent purpose.

but by that logic perhaps we should tap the Salvation Army as a replacement for the Red Cross? :)

[Gary Sugar]

"better logistics skills and equipment than any other organization"

If the appropriate civilian agencies can't do their jobs adequately, it's because Republicans have slashed their budgets and appointed political cronies to run them. So of course we should transfer resources from the bloated military to starved disaster relief.

[Bob]

My problem is that solutions that sound perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances are invitations to a militarily-imposed permanent kleptocracy under the current regime of scaliwags. I would rather muddle through the widespread disease and death of a plague than give these greedheads in charge any more power.

I can remember how righties used to be prepared to shoot it out rather than put their social security numbers on any government form or application. Now they're ready to surrender all privacy, yours and theirs, and let the army take over and run the whole shebang.

One other point. Somewhere out in the blogosphere someone said that the Cult of Norquist doesn't believe in government and doesn't believe it can work, and they have sufficiently demonstrated that they can make it not work. The only part of the government they have any respect for is the military because it has been protecting their overseas investments.

One more thing, from a long-term historical view: If you ever get the opportunity to read Peter Dale Scott's DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK, or better, some of his earlier, unpublished pieces on the same subject, you see a firm merging of thieving Texas politicians, the oil business, the military and the criminal underworld. Like a string of pearls, you can very easily string together just about all of Presidents since then as the latest incarnations of the same cesspool that brought us Dealey Plaza. Some not quite as bas as others, but that was the beginning of the end of democracy here.

Okay, I apologize. I'll just take my tinfoil hat and go back to my corner.

[Joel]

We already have such a force....it's called the National Guard, but unfortunately it is deployed over in Iraq....

[Zed Pobre]

I'd just like to note that the Posse Comitatus act actually allows quite a lot, and BushCo's claims that it tied the Federal government's hands seem to directly oppose the explanation on the Homeland Security site.

[gordo]

Joel--

That's a great point. How much sense does it make to set aside an active duty force for natural disasters, while sending National Guard units into a war zone? How long will it be before a president decides to send the Natural Disaster Force into a foreign war, leaving us back where we started?

If such a force is necessary, just put together a FEMA natual disaster response unit. Give them their own mobile hospitals, helicopters, etc. Frankly, I think it would make a lot more sense to simply rely less on the National Guard for foriegn adventures, so they're ready to deal with disasters when needed.

As for Posse Comitatus, I can't think of a single instance in which this act was successfully invoked to prevent the use of federal troops. I can think of a lot of cases in which federal troops have been used, though:

Waco--Federal troops acted as advisors during the siege.

Los Angeles--Federal troops moved in to restore order during the Rodney King riots.

Mexican-American border--Federal troops are currently being used to help with drug interdiction.

Atlanta--Federal troops moved in to ensure security during the 1996 Olympics.

West Virginia--Federal troops crushed a strike in the coal mining areas of Mingo County in 1921.

Arkansas--Federal troops enforced a desegregation order in 1957.

It's hard to see why people put so much faith in an act which, to my knowledge, has never been successfully enforced. The act itself is, in my opinion, of questionable constitutionality. Maybe that's why nobody bothers to challenge the domestic use of federal troops in court.

[Rob]

Posse Comitatus, to my understanding, was installed to protect apartheid regimes in Southern states from Federal intervention.

Given that, I'm unconvinced as to its continuing utility.

[gordo]

Rob--

While that's true, I think it's possible for a good law to be enacted for bad reasons. My objection to the Posse Comitatus Act is that it prevents (or would prevent, if it were taken more seriously) the president from exercising his or her legitimate authority. It's the president's job to execute the laws, and presidents can't do this without armed agents.

If we took the act seriously, the FBI and US Marshalls would be viewed as thinly-disguised military units, set up to gather intelligence and conduct operations in violation of PCA. The potential for the executive to misuse military units is great (see the reference to the West Virginia Coal War in my earlier post), but non-military federal agents have also been misused.

I think that the frequent invocation of Posse Comitatus is related to resistance to gun control. It's hard to accept the fact that a president with the backing of the military could exert tyrannical authority, and no law and no militia armed with M-16s could prevent that. It's only our troops' respect for the constitution that keeps us from becoming a police state.