A Letter to My Senator

[Beady]

Never thought I'd start a thread in the Politics forum, but... Here's the text of a letter I just emailed to my Senator, Pat Leahy. I've never written to my Congresscritters before, but the news story I just heard has really scared me. It didn't panic me, mind, but it did scare me. Anyway, here 'tis:

CNN just played a story about Pres. Bush requesting that Congress repeal the 1878 law prohibiting the military from performing police functions within the US.

Although a social liberal, I've always been generally in favor of a strong police and legal system. Lately, though, I've been getting very uncomfortable, being an American. Since 9/11, it *seems* like this one president has acquired the power to freely violate private and personal security and privacy, imprison people without specific charge, refuse prisoners recourse to the legal system, and submit them to secret tribunal. Now, I have visions of armed American soldiers breaking down American doors in the middle of the night to feed more prisoners into this new and improved legal system.

I realize I'm overreacting, but I'm old enough (just!) to remember the McCarthy era, and it's difficult to not draw parallels.

Please, do not let it become too easy for our military to be turned into a domestic political tool. There's a reason the 1878 law was passed; has that reason ceased to exist? We've seen what this administration is capable of overseas, given unlimited control of the world's largest armed forces; what will happen if is allowed to turn that force inward? It has happened elsewhere, many times. Is there any reason to believe that it can't happen here? It's difficult to think we may be creating a climate where our domestic security could ultimately depend on the willingness of our military to disobey orders.

 

[Jocko]

Never thought I'd start a thread in the Politics forum, but... Here's the text of a letter I just emailed to my Senator, Pat Leahy. I've never written to my Congresscritters before, but the news story I just heard has really scared me. It didn't panic me, mind, but it did scare me. Anyway, here 'tis:

So are you satisfied with the federal response following Katrina? Because observing constitutional restrictions on domestic deployments are exactly what slowed things down. Nothing could be done until they were requested by the governor, who apparently lost her rolodex in the flood.

Frankly, I'm all for it. Even mentioned it in the "what extreme positions do you have" thread.

 

[Beady]

So are you satisfied with the federal response following Katrina? Because observing constitutional restrictions on domestic deployments are exactly what slowed things down. Nothing could be done until they were requested by the governor, who apparently lost her rolodex in the flood.

What guarantees do you have that use of the military would be restricted to emergency relief? Remember, Bush is not apparently asking for restrictions to be loosened, he's asking that they be removed.

And, as I recall, it was FEMA that didn't get its but moving, even after the request had been made.

Also, I don't think it's a good idea to repeal a safeguard because of a single incident. No engineer, after all, will insitute a fix on the basis of a single data point.

Frankly, I'm all for it. Even mentioned it in the "what extreme positions do you have" thread.

Good for you. Luckily, I can be in Canada in less than 10 minutes.

 

[Manny]

What guarantees do you have that use of the military would be restricted to emergency relief? Remember, Bush is not apparently asking for restrictions to be loosened, he's asking that they be removed.

Actually, that's not true. He hasn't made a specific proposal and he wants Congress to bat around some ideas.

That said, it's a good letter. And you've got a friend on this issue -- Senator Leahy is very concerned about potential changes to Posse Comitatus. He's also on the National Guard committee, so he likes those guys over regular military. (Yeesh, I'm old. I remember when it was the ultra-conservatives who yelled "posse comitatus" every chance they got!).

In addition to trying to learn from the Katrina response, the president and others are worrying about how to respond to a potential bird flu pandemic if quarantines are called for. (Prediction: Bird flu 2005 = Swine Flu 1976).

I think your concerns are proper and that you've stated them well. My solution would be to allow military units to be deputized to governors under certain circumstances. That would allow the full and unmatched capability of the military to be released for things only they can do while still keeping federalism and state control of local law enforcement entact.

 

[joe1347]

Excellent letter.

As for reasons to lift the ban or limits on the US Military - How about this one. Did Bush/Rove make this outrageous proposal just to get a response from the Liberal Left and hence deflect attention from the feds poor response to Katrina as well as provide a "talking point" that the liberals are limiting the feds ability to respond to natural disasters.

 

[Tony]

What this ultimately boils down to is, do you want the government to have police state powers?

 

[peptoabysmal]

What this ultimately boils down to is, do you want the government to have police state powers?

Good letter. May I copy it and send it too? I happen to agree on the basis that the existing law has been already been modified to allow the use of armed forces in civilian emergencies, with restrictions.

As to the point:

There's a reason the 1878 law was passed; has that reason ceased to exist?

Actually, it has ceased to exist. The original law's purpose was to prevent troops from overseeing Confederate elections. It has been modified much since then.

My personal feeling is that Congress won't mess with the law and this is a smokescreen intended to divert attention from the Federal government's perceived slow response to hurricane Katrina.

 

[New Ager]

What this ultimately boils down to is, do you want the government to have police state powers?

When Katrina happened, liberals would say yes.

Of course, that's to deflect the Mayor and the Governor's responsibility for the mess in Louisiana and blame it on Bush. Typical liberals.

 

[TragicMonkey]

When Katrina happened, liberals would say yes.

Of course, that's to deflect the Mayor and the Governor's responsibility for the mess in Louisiana and blame it on Bush. Typical liberals.

I wasn't aware it was an either/or situation on blaming. Can't we blame the mayor and the governor and the state legislature (for siphoning off that money) and FEMA and and Bush and Homeland Security and Congress (for not making sure that money went where it was supposed to) and all the fatcat old-boy-networking cronyistic bastards in government who give all the jobs to their pals and then act surprised when incompetence surfaces?

Call me a liberal; I would like to strand all of those people in a flooded city with no electricity for a week.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Typical liberals.

Ooga-booga!

 

[Beady]

Good letter. May I copy it and send it too? I happen to agree on the basis that the existing law has been already been modified to allow the use of armed forces in civilian emergencies, with restrictions.

Feel free to copy. Frankly, I was expecting to get a whole lot more grousing, complaining and name-calling than has actually happened. It's a bit gratifying.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with existing laws evolving ad hoc to fit changing circumstances; it's only common sense. OTOH, I have a big problem with restrictions on government power being repealed, outright. Especially when those restrictions deal with one man's ability to wield the world's largest military with virtually no checks or balances.

 

[slingblade]

When Katrina happened, liberals would say yes.

I would? That's amazing! (Dead wrong, mind you, but still amazing.) G'head, put some more words in my mouth! Why, you're more amazing than Randi himself!

Of course, that's to deflect the Mayor and the Governor's responsibility for the mess in Louisiana and blame it on Bush. Typical liberals.

I blame Bush and his administration only for their parts in the mess, no more and no less. I blame the local government for their parts in the mess, no more and no less.

Hey, read my mind now. Go ahead: what am I thinking about you and your ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted overgeneralizations?

 

[Tony]

When Katrina happened, liberals would say yes.

Does that mean you support repealing the law against using the military in a police state capacity?

We already know one "true American" does:

So are you satisfied with the federal response following Katrina? Because observing constitutional restrictions on domestic deployments are exactly what slowed things down. Nothing could be done until they were requested by the governor, who apparently lost her rolodex in the flood.

Frankly, I'm all for it. Even mentioned it in the "what extreme positions do you have" thread.

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

The military are trained killers. They follow a different set of rules for combat than the police, who are trained to politely get you to stop doing what you are doing, using violence as a last resort.

I only see two options. Train fema to logistically handle an emergency as well as the military would, which wouldn't be that difficult if you hired ex-military instead of ex-horse show guys. Or train the military to give miranda rights.

The police have their place, and the military have their place, and they should never cross.

 

[Beady]

The military are trained killers. They follow a different set of rules for combat than the police, who are trained to politely get you to stop doing what you are doing, using violence as a last resort.

Ever been to Los Angeles?

 

[Mycroft]

So are you satisfied with the federal response following Katrina? Because observing constitutional restrictions on domestic deployments are exactly what slowed things down. Nothing could be done until they were requested by the governor, who apparently lost her rolodex in the flood.

Frankly, I'm all for it. Even mentioned it in the "what extreme positions do you have" thread.

I think a better solution is to elect more competent governors.

 

[Cylinder]

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit federal troops from domestic law enforcement. Instead, it vests the power of statutory authorization for this role with Congress and the Constitution instead of with the President, local authorities, or military leadership. Congress has already delegated some of this authority back to the President and state governments. A more detailed examination of these issues can be found in this thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

As for reasons to lift the ban or limits on the US Military - How about this one. Did Bush/Rove make this outrageous proposal just to get a response from the Liberal Left and hence deflect attention from the feds poor response to Katrina as well as provide a "talking point" that the liberals are limiting the feds ability to respond to natural disasters.

Been watching too much West Wing, have we? Nice thinking, but I don't see Cheney/Rove (not Bush/Rove, IMO) coming up with it just now. The fire they're fighting is on the Right, not the deeply dispiriting US Left of today. I think they mean what they say. It's a dangerous move, even in principle. Posse Comitatus wasn't just about post-Confederate elections, it reflected a deep unease in the whole political community about the post-war role of the Army. It was enormous, and the business it generated was equally enormous. Would the generals and contractors simply disband it when told to? In hindsight, yes, but who knew?. There'd been a lot of anti-Constitutionality going on, justified by the exigencies of war.

Constant Vigilance is required. And in the UK as much as in the US.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Feel free to copy. Frankly, I was expecting to get a whole lot more grousing, complaining and name-calling than has actually happened. It's a bit gratifying.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with existing laws evolving ad hoc to fit changing circumstances; it's only common sense. OTOH, I have a big problem with restrictions on government power being repealed, outright. Especially when those restrictions deal with one man's ability to wield the world's largest military with virtually no checks or balances.

Thank you. I will do just that. I'm old enough to remember the Watts riots. Using military force in civilian application is thin ice that we should tread very carefully upon.

 

[Beady]

Thank you. I will do just that. I'm old enough to remember the Watts riots. Using military force in civilian application is thin ice that we should tread very carefully upon.

I remember the Detroit riots. IIRC, that was one case where domestic troop deployment was used by the President as a political tool.