Posted on May 2, 2015
Should we repeal the Posse Comitatus Act in light of riots and terrorism?
32.8K
287
163
5
5
0
Posse Comitatus Act, a United States federal law prohibiting members of the military from exercising powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property Act, a United States federal law prohibiting members of the military from exercising powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 55
24
24
0
That is what the National Guard is for. The states can use their Guard and State Defense Forces for that purpose.
(24)
(0)
MSgt Howard Blake
Not "no", but HELL NO! Posse Comitatus is one the few laws that keeps the U.S. from becoming a police state! The military should focus on military issues against our military enemies and the local police should attend to civilian police matters!
(2)
(0)
SSG John Erny
CW4 (P) Jim Steddum, MSG David Chappell, MSG Tom Earley
Not all guard units are a soup sandwich, this is very true post 9/11. I think Nebraska is a fine example, our NCO schools train active duty soldiers. To get into the Airborne unit you need at least 250 on your PT test.
My last AT there was a transportation unit for Ft. Carson 4th ID that was a Joke! They did not wear the same uniform, some had head gear on some did not. I even saluted on of their LT's and she said, "Hi, how ya doin" with a half assed salute back. I, Having come from active duty was both shocked and offended.
Not all guard units are a soup sandwich, this is very true post 9/11. I think Nebraska is a fine example, our NCO schools train active duty soldiers. To get into the Airborne unit you need at least 250 on your PT test.
My last AT there was a transportation unit for Ft. Carson 4th ID that was a Joke! They did not wear the same uniform, some had head gear on some did not. I even saluted on of their LT's and she said, "Hi, how ya doin" with a half assed salute back. I, Having come from active duty was both shocked and offended.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I don't think the assessment of the National Guard in this post is fair or accurate. Every part of our force has good and bad units. Some of the worst units I worked with in Iraq were Regular Army. Their incompetence and poor leadership went to the point of safety issues and violations of the NCO creed. One of the units my wife served in on active duty was dysfunctional to the point of toxicity. However, none of this means all regulars are jacked up either.
I'm not saying the National Guard doesn't have it's share of issues, but to write us off wholesale is the wrong answer. The assumption that most ARNG units aren't ready to conduct riot control is probably right. However, neither is our regular force. Furthermore, the National Guard has a huge variety of domestic missions they support. It can range from riot control to winter response and everything in between. To truly be experts in these activities would require the full devotion of our training time. That said, riot control missions are far less common than a deployment. With limited training time available, which would you focus on: a mission that happens once every decade or skills to keep your men alive in combat?
I'm not saying the National Guard doesn't have it's share of issues, but to write us off wholesale is the wrong answer. The assumption that most ARNG units aren't ready to conduct riot control is probably right. However, neither is our regular force. Furthermore, the National Guard has a huge variety of domestic missions they support. It can range from riot control to winter response and everything in between. To truly be experts in these activities would require the full devotion of our training time. That said, riot control missions are far less common than a deployment. With limited training time available, which would you focus on: a mission that happens once every decade or skills to keep your men alive in combat?
(1)
(0)
PO2 Jonathan Rogers
I support the full repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act especially in light of the treaonous actions of the Oregon Governor who would refuse to use National Guard troops to protect the American southern border. In fact, I would station U.S. military troops along the southern border..it would be a better use of our military than fighting worthless wars in Iraq (which made room for ISIS), Afghanistan, Syria, and all the other pointless wars that only resulted in dead and wounded troops but nothing good being accomplished. I would support putting all law enforcement in the hands of the military especially in the lawless rogue traitor State of California where our State government is in a state of open rebellion against the lawful power of the Federal government.
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
With all respect, I would not expect this question from an NCO as a serious topic. Not trying to 'dis' anyone, but the posse comitatus act is one of the most important safeguards to the integrity of the Armed Forces, and the security of the citizens. This goes to the root philosophy of our Constitution and the principles we all have sworn to defend.
(21)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
Now I have learned something new. I was unfamiliar with the Dick Act so I did a bit of research. Basically the Dick Act was the means to actually Federalize militia units for service as regular units of the military. Prior to this, state militia units were utilized only as "volunteer" units. One of the most notable volunteer units was "The Rough Riders" under Teddy Roosevelt. The Dick Act also served to bring militia unit organizations into line with standard military structure and formation. So, in effect, the Dick Act says HOW they can be called into service, and Posse Comitatus (and several other acts) says where they can and can't be used.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Ron Burling
Ok, we have both learned something, Gunner. The Dick Act probably came to my attention while I was researching an article I wrote on the 5th Nebraska Volunteer Infantry and the very first National Guard Mobilization in 1916. The entire NG was mobilized and sent to the Mexican Border, in support of the Punitive Expedition.
(1)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
The more I look into this general topic the more concerned I become. There are so many little provisos and exceptions for various reasons, it almost seems to gut the Posse Comitatus Act. I always thought of the PCA as a large umbrella of protection......but it's beginning to look like a small parasol.......
(1)
(0)
PO2 Ron Burling
And, technicality time, it really doesn't apply to the Navy. The PCA specifically says "military forces". That is to say, legally, the land forces. Dept of the Navy added themselves willingly, but the law isn't changed so they could flip-flop and uninclude themselves at will.
(1)
(0)
17
17
0
No, hell no, and no. And a caveat.
No, military action and law enforcement are different things, and should remain so. Criminal civilians are NOT enemy combatants, and should not be treated as such.
Hell no, using the military in such a manner is going to breed resentments in large swaths of the country. This would remove the "consent of the governed", which is the necessary bedrock of a true republic.
No, unless you turned the military into a permanently stationed constabulary, they would not have the local knowledge to effectively police. Instead, they would need to sweep in for "retaliation" against people whom they would have a tough time distinguishing from law-abiding citizens in an operating environment that they weren't familiar with.
Caveat. For the record, the Posse Comitatus act isn't that big of a hurdle when there is a shared perception of a real threat. Despite how we talk about it, PC doesn't state that federal troops CANNOT be used. (Yes, I said that!) Instead, it states that federal troops cannot be used WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. All the President needs to use federal troops for domestic law enforcement is congressional approval. In a true "clear and present danger" situation, about which all reasonable people agree, it is a speed bump at best. In a situation where there are significant differences of opinion, it is a big brick wall. Since people disagree, it has been a brick wall. This is as it should be.
No, military action and law enforcement are different things, and should remain so. Criminal civilians are NOT enemy combatants, and should not be treated as such.
Hell no, using the military in such a manner is going to breed resentments in large swaths of the country. This would remove the "consent of the governed", which is the necessary bedrock of a true republic.
No, unless you turned the military into a permanently stationed constabulary, they would not have the local knowledge to effectively police. Instead, they would need to sweep in for "retaliation" against people whom they would have a tough time distinguishing from law-abiding citizens in an operating environment that they weren't familiar with.
Caveat. For the record, the Posse Comitatus act isn't that big of a hurdle when there is a shared perception of a real threat. Despite how we talk about it, PC doesn't state that federal troops CANNOT be used. (Yes, I said that!) Instead, it states that federal troops cannot be used WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. All the President needs to use federal troops for domestic law enforcement is congressional approval. In a true "clear and present danger" situation, about which all reasonable people agree, it is a speed bump at best. In a situation where there are significant differences of opinion, it is a big brick wall. Since people disagree, it has been a brick wall. This is as it should be.
(17)
(0)
MSG David Chappell
Based on your argument what about military police action in civilian populations again non combatants in other countries the act is still the same. We do well there we could do well here.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
It is not primarily a question of capacity, it is a question of appropriateness. (Though, as mentioned above, I don't think we have the capacity.)
There is ONE huge difference in other countries. They are NOT our government's citizens. We ARE taking military action against them, we are not being the duly constituted government under a republican form.
War against others is the military's job. War against our own citizens is not. The law enforcement actions we take elsewhere are a supporting effort of the main effort of winning the war. We don't send our military to France to deal with their "youths" rioting for example.
On a totally separate point, I don't unreservedly agree with our "policing" and "governance" operations that we have undertaken in our current wars as. I also have a dimmer view of our success in such actions that you appear to.
There is ONE huge difference in other countries. They are NOT our government's citizens. We ARE taking military action against them, we are not being the duly constituted government under a republican form.
War against others is the military's job. War against our own citizens is not. The law enforcement actions we take elsewhere are a supporting effort of the main effort of winning the war. We don't send our military to France to deal with their "youths" rioting for example.
On a totally separate point, I don't unreservedly agree with our "policing" and "governance" operations that we have undertaken in our current wars as. I also have a dimmer view of our success in such actions that you appear to.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google