Should we repeal the Posse Comitatus Act in light of riots and terrorism?

2015-05-02T19:31:31-04:00

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

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 2 at 2015 7:37 PM

2015-05-02T19:37:15-04:00

Absolutely not!!!

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made May 2 at 2015 7:40 PM

2015-05-02T19:40:38-04:00

Negative. That statute was passed for a reason, and the reason remains valid today. Turn the military against the citizens, you begin the end of the republic as we know it. No sir.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made May 2 at 2015 8:02 PM

2015-05-02T20:02:24-04:00

That is what the National Guard is for. The states can use their Guard and State Defense Forces for that purpose.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made May 2 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-05-02T20:42:15-04:00

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.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 8:57 PM

2015-05-02T20:57:07-04:00

I don't think that's necessary. The country overall isn't in turmoil, just temporary disturbance due to certain unfortunate events. Riots and terrorism are relatively isolated and are quickly handled with the balance of local authorities and feds as needed. Order has virtually been restored from Baltimore riots, therefore the need for extra forces and repeal of Posse Comitatus isn't necessary.

With all due respect, I'm surprised you even asked it being that this Act was created for the purpose of minimizing government intrusion into private citizen affairs and further to protect one's Constitutional rights.

Response by SFC Joseph James made May 2 at 2015 9:00 PM

2015-05-02T21:00:15-04:00

It is a safeguard for our citizens. The federal government shall not enslave it's citizens with our Military! God help them if they tried! I would not follow an order that called for me to use military force against our countrymen. Enemies foreign and domestic only!

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 2 at 2015 9:06 PM

2015-05-02T21:06:45-04:00

MSG David Chappell:

OK, here is my thought on this particular subject so bear with me:

Don't suspend or repeal the Posse Comitatus simply re-instate the draft. Draft the people who are protesting into the armed forces, train them and then since they like to destroy things and hurt people send them into a combat theater of operations. That should solve a myriad of problems.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 2 at 2015 10:14 PM

2015-05-02T22:14:13-04:00

I think not.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-05-02T23:38:39-04:00

Ridiculous. Can't happen. And to caveat the Federal government shouldn't be maintaining law and order on any property. That is not a function of the Federal government. Not to mention there shouldn't be such a thing as federal and non-federal land, because the Fed cannot own or purchase land as it does not have its own money to purchase it with. The only funds it has, originate from the People, and Article I section 8 says nothing about purchasing or maintaining land rights. Nor does it say anything about providing law and order to the People of any territory. Congress has the RESPONSIBILITY and authority to raise armies for two purposes, neither or which is law enforcement.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 2 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-05-02T23:38:57-04:00

No!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 12:05 AM

2015-05-03T00:05:22-04:00

The Posse Comitatus Act should remain. The purpose of the military is to fight enemies of the state. If we're used to police citizens as well, it becomes all too easy for the two classes to be mixed.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made May 3 at 2015 1:19 AM

2015-05-03T01:19:31-04:00

In my opinion, NO. I would suggest we repeal a number of laws that turn people into criminals for engaging in consensual acts. The "war on drugs" comes to mind, as do anti-prostitution laws. The elimination of asset seizure/ forfeiture laws would help also. These actions would take much of the violence out of police work, making life less dangerous for police, while respecting the rights of people to make consensual, non- violent choices without having their rights violated. Creating laws that escalate violence and then encouraging police forces to enforce them zealously often serves to escalate violence and create rifts.
It is these rifts that lead to these demonstrations. Adding more force in the name of the Federal government ( we already have plenty in our LE agencies, along with the National Guard) only ads more wood to the fire. The less Federal involvement in our lives, the better, in my opinion.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 3:30 AM

2015-05-03T03:30:02-04:00

Riots and terrorism are two totally different situations. The National Guard is the primary safety net for states to call on when the Police become overwhelmed and they do a great job of it. In fact that amount of NG troops with deployment experience actually enhance that ability to gain control over a situation. They also do a great job when it comes to humanitarian relief when you think local units get called up in their hometown and are helping with relief efforts in addition to aiding their own friends and families.
Terrorism is a whole other topic, the DOJ has spent billions ramping up CT task forces across Federal Agencies, primarily the FBI. They have the ability to draw on the equipment and learning lessons from international counterparts and CT units in the DOD so leveraging the manpower isn't needed unless things became dire.

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made May 3 at 2015 6:48 AM

2015-05-03T06:48:17-04:00

I have read all the posts on this subject and this concerns me more than anything. I believe the big question is as military members past and present will you take up arms against law abiding Americans if ordered? I am concerned about this more then any other issue. I am no conspiracy nut but seems our country is being attacked from without and within. Taking away Constitutional Rights, Trying to take away the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Would you as a military member detain an American because they own guns or speak out against the Government. We swore an oath to defend the Constitution which includes in my mind the rights of law abiding Americans. So all this Army or National Guard crap means nothing we all need to look at the big picture. And be ready to stand together or perhaps worse is in store for us.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made May 3 at 2015 8:32 AM

2015-05-03T08:32:14-04:00

NO.
Active Duty should not get involved at the local level.
My Home State of Texas, obviously has no love of the Feds. You send the Federal Military to Texas to handle a state problem, and do anything other then border control, which the Feds aren't doing anyway. Texas MIGHT become its own country again real fast.
The Lessons we know today, are written on the Tombstones of others.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-05-03T09:09:35-04:00

This is a slippery slope. These Acts are protection from over reach of government and should be weighed very heavily.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-05-03T09:29:14-04:00

No not at all , many a citizen today are falling into a trap. That is keep focused on TV and inconsequential material possessions and forget about important stuff like , skill set, social skills and family ties which bring peace of mind for the grown up. Than after a short period of time , like the time needed for a President to serve his or her term in office. That shock , this person or that person never helped me , never really did anything i thought would happen after election day. In fact the current President never met his own jobs council. The greater point is that today almost any setback can cause a group to rise up in anger and stamp their feet on the ground and wave their fist in the air. It's all about poverty and despair. Caused by an un-fair system in which Wall-Street bonus money alone amounted to more than the bottom 40 or 50 percent earned total by our nations working poor. And it's getting worse , for the first time in 30 years in America more business went under than were started. That should tell you something about where our current political leaders are willing to take the Nation. ** It is up to us to become active , run for office and change the system. Not cripple or destroy it , just change it. But never by way of force , never by way of pointing the Army or Marines at our own citizens.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made May 3 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-05-03T09:52:19-04:00

With this question I have seen a lot of people comment on the involvement of the military being used on citizens to take away guns and so on so a question I would raise have serving in the military and being in Iraq would you stand against the person or government that is at your door step to remove your weapons? I don't know how to set it up to vote but these would be the ones I would ask
Are you willing to give up your weapons should the government require it?
Would you fight to the bloody end to keep your weapons?
This is a question I ask myself every day. I don't want to have to shoot a person that comes to my door for my weapons but I will as I would find it an unlawful order to give to take them

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made May 3 at 2015 10:03 AM

2015-05-03T10:03:56-04:00

I have an idea - lets just declare martial law, institute a police state and just start rounding people we don't like up into re-education camps. That's essentially what repealing the PCA would do. It would be an extraordinary violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 3 at 2015 10:13 AM

2015-05-03T10:13:57-04:00

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.

Response by MSG David Chappell made May 3 at 2015 10:26 AM

2015-05-03T10:26:14-04:00

Thank you all for your responses. This question has been asked at every leadership school I attended as well as my college classes. I asked this question to my students in constitutional law. Dancers were extremely different it seems that not many in the civilian sector truly understand what the act represents or why it is an affect. Many of my younger students who've never served in the military thought this could be a very useful tool for the federal government to secure borders as well as secure cities in turmoil. It is as many people have said a very slippery slope and once you start down on it while you gain security you must lose freedom in order to secure it. An interesting point to the act is the civilian law enforcement and government may use troops as advisers only they are free to use equipment. What have you been taught to understand is "equipment"

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 3 at 2015 10:34 AM

2015-05-03T10:34:56-04:00

Repeal the 3rd Amendment also .. then the troops wont have to sleep in the street.

Response by 1SG Dave Arpin made May 3 at 2015 10:39 AM

2015-05-03T10:39:30-04:00

IMHO I believe those in charge are moving our country in this direction. A federalization of the police under the direct control of the government without individual States oversight or control. I pray and hope that our citizens can control the current demonization of LEO in this country that is enflaming the divide between the police and the citizens.
The current use of the National Guard is allowed and usually is enough to maintain order. We experienced that in 98 when a tornado ripped us up and we didn't have the man power to cover everything, and the MNARNG put up with a lot of emotion from their "neighbors". They commented asking us how we put up with that kind of sh*t on a daily basis, and our response was just another day in the 'hood":-)
Peace!

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-05-03T11:45:08-04:00

No!!! The national guard has got this!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 3 at 2015 3:41 PM

2015-05-03T15:41:57-04:00

There is a vast difference between defense and law enforcement. Training, equipment, tactics, and strategy are entirely unrelated. The only branch trained in both is the Coast Guard. Turning soldiers loose on civilian protesters is a formula for disaster. Remember Kent State?

Even more troubling is the fact that calls for ending or modifying the Posse Comitatus Act are heard on the Left who fear a general public uprising against their assaults on the Constitution and our civil liberties. They create scenarios involving "right wingers" fomenting rebellion.

What a laugh! Have you ever seen a Tea Party gathering? A bunch of Americans assembling peacefully, observing all civil ordinances, and picking up their trash before they go home. Now, compare that to the scenes of rape and riot as well as the destruction of public property that occur at assemblies of leftists (think the Occupy and Green Movements).

Or course that's not the picture drawn by the popular media and arts communities. They've been providing propaganda cover for the Left for several decades.

Sorry for going all political, but you asked...

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 3 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-05-03T19:33:58-04:00

No, because at that point we become hired thugs of the individual occupying the oval office who have no jurisdiction in any state territory. Next thing you know you're goose stepping in a parade, and we've seen how that stuff works out...

Response by PFC Fred VanOlphen made May 3 at 2015 10:22 PM

2015-05-03T22:22:54-04:00

It is very heartening to see that so many in the military and ex-military understand this most important cornerstone of American Freedom. The Posse Comitatus Act, which has been already been subverted by the militarization of local police, cooperations between special forces and local police (Such as Jade Helm 15) , was enacted to make the distinction between military and police absolutely clear. This is a very important law that prevents societal conditions from degenerating to that of Nazi Germany pre-WWII and it CANNOT BE OVERSTEPPED! When we see soldiers in our streets we KNOW we are being occupied.

IMO it is dangerous for the military and local police to mix functions and equipment or to even be cooperating in joint exercises such as Jade Helm 15. Communication between police and military should be restricted to specific cases where a crime may have military implications or the other way around.

The Ferguson and Baltimore riots were/are being orchestrated to divide racially and to prepare as a PSYOP for militarization in our cities. When people like George Soros actively promote unrest through direct funding you know it's being done for some NWO purpose. Their modus-operandi is always to divide internally. I am very suspicious about what is really going on there. My first thought is "What if they gave riot and nobody came?" Stay home and pray for peace but be ready to defend your rights at any cost!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 12:35 AM

2015-05-04T00:35:53-04:00

I'll just go ahead and skip the normal pleasantries on this topic. You are a mouth breathing idiot for even suggesting it. The military should always be subordinate to a civilian authority. That's what separates us from failed nations in Africa. The military (active duty) is an organization that focuses on threats beyond our borders. We have more than enough civilian entities, like the FBI, who are tasked with threats inside our borders who have the authority, by law, to act. We also have the Guard, who have the authority to act. In the rare instances where Federal troops have been called upon to act inside the US, they have always fallen under a Guard senior officer who falls under a civilian leader for that state who is not beholden to the federal government.

Response by MSgt Bob Lighthiser made May 4 at 2015 6:52 AM

2015-05-04T06:52:14-04:00

Absolutely not. That'll just give him all the power he has ever wanted. The military is the only thing that has stopped his complete takeover of our lives.

Response by MSG David Chappell made May 4 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-05-04T13:59:09-04:00

I want to thank all of you for the responses. As many of you are aware the discussion is not to change policy but to gain insight on members views of such policies. I teach at a College, my classes range from Forensics to Constitutional Law. I use the some of these questions on the students and am surprised at the responses. I have created a brief summery of these responses to share with them.

I also wish to thank those of you who expanded on your posting and maintained common courtesy.

Response by MAJ Pete Joplin made May 4 at 2015 4:06 PM

2015-05-04T16:06:57-04:00

No. As a matter of fact, we should repeal the PATRIOT Act.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 4 at 2015 6:41 PM

2015-05-04T18:41:52-04:00

Not only no, but hell no.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 10:10 PM

2015-05-04T22:10:55-04:00

The repeal of this act/law coupled with the abuse of this act would not only put civilian lives in danger but also needlessly put troops in danger as well. I say abuse of this act because only those with ill intentions would try to get this repealed. The individual States Militia are the closest thing to a military that should ever be used in law enforcement on US soil. Then again I also think that major military excercises should not be intermingled with the populace.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 12:50 AM

2015-05-05T00:50:30-04:00

I do not believe we should. However, something has got to be done. With the destruction and crime that has been committed in Ferguson and Baltimore, many in today's society seems to think they can loot, pillage, and riot simply because they can. If something is not done soon, this will end up becoming a normal occurrence. It's a delicate balance that definitely needs attention to the point that society must understand that they cannot right a wrong by committing many wrongs in its place.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-05-05T09:28:21-04:00

MSG David Chappell No. As others have said this is what the National Guard is for. When it comes down to it, this becomes a very slippery slope for future actions if we allow the military to help "maintain" law and order.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made May 5 at 2015 11:33 AM

2015-05-05T11:33:03-04:00

I'm so sick of hearing about this act from a bunch of ignorant rednecks who think it prohibits the US Military from training wherever or however they damn well please. But no, it's a good law and should not be repealed.

Response by MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. made May 5 at 2015 12:57 PM

2015-05-05T12:57:57-04:00

Absolutely not.

For one thing, we have more federal agencies now that have some measure of law enforcement powers than ever before. Here is a partial list of some of those agencies: Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Dept of Health and Human Services, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept of the Interior, Dept of Justice, Dept of Labor, Dept of State, Dept of Transportation, Dept of Treasury, Dept of Veterans Affairs, and on and on (and of course the DOD). And that's just the Executive Branch. And each of those departments may have several agencies within their department that have federal law enforcement powers. We are SURROUNDED by law enforcement.

Secondly, IF there is a need for military resources in a civil disturbance role, as others have already mentioned, this is specifically a mission for the National Guard units of the various states. Not the Active Army or the Army Reserve, which are forces governed by Title 10, USC, but the National Guard, which is governed by Title 32, USC and is "owned" first and foremost by the Governors of the several states. Even in cases of extreme unrest or disaster, governors can - and do - communicate with other states to receive assistance in the form of men and materiel to respond to the needs of the state.

It is disturbing enough to see the militarization of many local police forces. The call up of the National Guard in any situation is indicative of the seriousness of the situation. There are already local and national resources trained, equipped and charged with the missions to handle civil unrest and homeland security; I fear if we ever walked through the door of using the Active military in that role (especially in the matter of civil unrest), we would have crossed a threshold that would be difficult to come back from. The wielding of such power would be too tempting for some men (or women) to ever let go of.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 5 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-05-05T13:35:27-04:00

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 5 at 2015 2:15 PM

2015-05-05T14:15:06-04:00

I think you need to read the complete use of the Posse Comitatus Act and how it has been modified and used by various Presidents and which services fall under it.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made May 5 at 2015 2:42 PM

2015-05-05T14:42:52-04:00

No, should it be modified, yes, but repealed no. It prevents Federal Troops from being used against the American People. Which if some people in Texas would read the law would understand.

Response by MSG David Chappell made May 5 at 2015 2:45 PM

2015-05-05T14:45:58-04:00

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the 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.
-Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 138

The ACT limits or restrains the use of Federal Troops for Law Enforcement purposes. The Military may not be used to enforce these laws on American soil. This is the common perception of the act but few, even scholars, have it correct. The ACT was created to limit the United States Army from being used by local law enforcement Officials from conscripting soldiers into a posse for their expressed use. The Law of Possse Comitatus was created to give those in Law Enforcement the ability to deputize citizens and act as a member of LE to chase down and apprehend criminals.
Common misconceptions:
• Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947.
• Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them.
• Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law enforcement agency with police powers.
• Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors.
• May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. It is commonly believed, however, that National Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is followed today.
• Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors.
• Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law.
• Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at its facilities.
• Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes.

To summarize the ACT, as intended, limit the ability of LE (Sheriffs Marshals and Chiefs of Police) to pull into service members of the Military. The use of Soldiers on American soil is as many have cited a “slippery slope”. Once power is given (or taken) it is difficult to regain. The use of troops while on the surface seems plausible and with merit once released the impact would be felt across all individual freedoms.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 3:25 PM

2015-05-05T15:25:00-04:00

No, the Posse Comitatus Act allows congress to authorize the military to do what needs doing... the Posse Comitatus Act is something we need to preserve.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-05-05T15:57:40-04:00

I'd say no the military is not law enforcement branch. I do however think the Army should be used to secure the borders of our country, since the mission of the Army is to defend the nation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-05-05T15:58:19-04:00

I'd say no the military is not law enforcement branch. I do however think the Army should be used to secure the borders of our country, since the mission of the Army is to defend the nation.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 4:40 PM

2015-05-05T16:40:33-04:00

I know several other people have made this comment previously but no, posse comitatus protects the citizens of the US from title 10 forces being used against them as police. If you look around the world creating a police state is one of the last major steps before a dictator takes total control of a country. Not only that, regular Army personnel are not trained in policing, we're trained in winning wars, most often by "closing with, engaging and destroying our enemies." Do you really want us walking the streets en mass and acting as police? The best way to police is to actually police, not use solely law enforcement. If you see something wrong happening either intercede or at a minimum report it.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke. Be the good man/woman.

Response by 1SG Joe Messier made May 5 at 2015 4:54 PM

2015-05-05T16:54:56-04:00

No, the Posse Comitatus was made exactly moments like this. It is a limiting power to prevent overuse of force. Turning a military on its own people will have disastrous results. It equates to a declaration of war against American citizens and is the definition of a Civil War. There's so many other steps that can be done before this civil disturbances could be considered. Hey I got it, nobody likes the insanity that's taking place right now but a certain level of restraint has to be demonstrated and a gradual escalation, i.e. National Guard mobilization, riot containment. Don't forget why Posse Comitatus was past in the first place, to end military occupation of the south after the Civil War reconstruction. Many Generals were relieved of command during the reconstruction, why? The Military is made to fight and win war, and they are damn good at it. Not so good at trying to quell over inflated civil disturbances of it's own people. In my opinion it equates to trying to crush a cockroach with an atomic bomb.

Response by SGT Kevin Gardner made May 5 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-05-05T17:09:30-04:00

The greatest threat to a free a people is a standing military. When we start asking ourselves if we should do away with protections that were set as a precaution to keep those of us in service to our nation from being used as a tool to subjugate the people we defend. Any step that would threaten that balance is a step best not taken, no matter how much justification you think is necessary ultimately the price will be higher than the justification intended.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 8:03 PM

2015-05-05T20:03:01-04:00

No, the Police are better armed already.

Response by MSG Daniel Hermany made May 5 at 2015 10:32 PM

2015-05-05T22:32:36-04:00

No that is why we have the National Guard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 1:08 AM

2015-05-06T01:08:07-04:00

As tempting as it would to say, turn us lose we can fix it. I have to say no. We cannot operate the same way here as we do in other countries. I think of all of the times that I have been deployed and all of the firefights that I have been in, all of the times I have been blown up, the amount of distrust that I had of the entire population, and I honestly think that when you take us and the training that we have and try to apply it to a domestic setting it is so much like taking a fish out of water.
Naturally, you would have to take the .50 out of play right? Then you would take the M1A2s out of play right? Then you would take what the M240s out of play right? Then you would take the MK19s out of play right? So really is there need for the combat MOS? If no, then who is going to do it? The MPs? Well that would be overtaxing them and the US has MP's we call them Cops.
I think that the idea is just ill advised. Then there is the thought of having a force operating inside the United States under the Presidents control, suddenly you are giving all of the United States up to a Police State. Then you are looking at so much more unrest that would not have been actually existent if we had never rolled in to begin with.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 1:13 AM

2015-05-06T01:13:21-04:00

Hell no.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made May 7 at 2015 1:28 AM

2015-05-07T01:28:12-04:00

No there are many reasons one is so the Federal government doses not have the authority to takeover sovereignty of the states there is a fine line between Federal and States rights

Response by SPC Angel Guma made May 7 at 2015 1:39 AM

2015-05-07T01:39:02-04:00

MSGt-

Very respectfully, that's what the so-called militarization of the police is all about. I think the Possee Comitatus Act was repealed a long time ago. Its a way of working outside of the box to apply military-like police force. Maybe it hasn't been repealed as an actual legislative act, but if we were to consider the rioters as being warning lights in a broken engine, then the police becoming more militarized is symptomatic that the act was already being incrementally broken years ago.

That being said, sometimes you have to wonder about the US military being used more like policemen, but in other parts of the world. I'm not the only soldier that's made a comment or two about ROE becoming more faithfully followed by the military than 'probable cause' doctrine is followed by police. MPs and Infantry in Afghanistan, as I observed them, seemed to really follow their own guiding doctrines more like how I've always imagined police should. We even have Civil Affairs and other branches of the military almost taking on these humanitarian aid like roles, and giving out water and aid here and there is not unheard of for people who have had a deployment or two. So I don't think the Army and Marines used stateside as another police-force is as out of the box as some of us would like to believe, Iraq and Afghanistan has already trained broad swathes of the new generation of soldiers to think very policemen like.

Not saying this is right, but just pointing out the irony of the military becoming more like the global police and police in the US becoming more military.

Response by CW5 Dennis Stewart made May 7 at 2015 10:47 AM

2015-05-07T10:47:00-04:00

Under no circumstance should the active duty break the Posse Comitatus act. It is there to protect the citizens from the tyranny of a government gone rouge. The NG is under the state control and as such the governor of that state may deploy them as needed. I have been deployed on state emergency duty as well as active duty. My point is, active duty troops would be seen by the populace as a oppressive occupation force and nothing good would come of that. You deploy active troops and you better get ready for a revolution.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 7 at 2018 10:48 AM

2018-04-07T10:48:43-04:00

It's there for a good reason- just look at the history of our founding. It separates military authority from the civil authority. We go to riots, but we only "detain" or assist- we do not "arrest" Our UCMJ is much different then the civil laws and which would enforce if you had that right?