Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 10-07-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not to be all rude and condescending, but why wouldn't posse comitatus apply in DC?

and again, federalized national guard forces to conduct evacuations and rescues is all hunky dory with me because those are not law enforcement actions. So I ask, how does that apply?

so you see no difference in crowd control operations at the superdome during katrina and crowd control at the DNC/RNC??

dksuddeth, I tried to edit my post before you replied because my rude sentence was uncalled for. If you'd edit your post to reflect mine, I'd appreciate it

Washington, DC is directly governed by Congress; it's a federal district, not a state.

How I feel about what seems proper uses of military on US soil isn't really relevant to what the law allows...unless I intend to martyr myself for an ideological belief. I don't, so until we all get to a proper understanding of what the threats vs. the benefits of employing them and a rational discussion about when to do so, we should stick with what the law currently allows until we can change it more in line with our beliefs.

Willravel, you might be interested in the following:

Quote:

32 C.F.R. § 501.4 Martial law.
Title 32 - National Defense

Title 32: National Defense
PART 501—EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 501.4 Martial law.

It is unlikely that situations requiring the commitment of Federal Armed Forces will necessitate the declaration of martial law. When Federal Armed Forces are committed in the event of civil disturbances, their proper role is to support, not supplant, civil authority. Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation; necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration. The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will depend upon the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time. In most instances the decision to impose martial law is made by the President, who normally announces his decision by a proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not permit obtaining prior approval from higher authority (§501.2). Whether or not a proclamation exists, it is incumbent upon commanders concerned to weigh every proposed action against the threat to public order and safety it is designed to meet, in order that the necessity therefor may be ascertained. When Federal Armed Forces have been committed in an objective area in a martial law situation, the population of the affected area will be informed of the rules of conduct and other restrictive measures the military is authorized to enforce. These will normally be announced by proclamation or order and will be given the widest possible publicity by all available media. Federal Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers previously inoperative in the affected area, restore and maintain order, insure the essential mechanics of distribution, transportation, and communication, and initiate necessary relief measures.

No one has ever been prosecuted under posse comitatus and likely never will be.

Quote:

Since Posse Comitatus does not directly apply to National Guard units, which are under the control of state governors, National Guard units have been nationalized under particular circumstances to place them under federal control and legal constraints. Civil rights unrest during the 1950’s and ‘60’s, rioting during a Democratic Party National Convention, and riots in the Watts area of Los Angeles were all events that strained the concepts of strict separation of National Guard and federal forces. Recent events have pointed out serious misconceptions of the law.

Contrary to popular thought, the prohibitions against using regular troops or federalized National Guard units in law enforcement are not absolute. The exceptions and enabling structures are written into the language of the statues. The Constitution has always required the President to be the keeper of public order. If the President receives a request from a state governor for assistance to quell public disorder, the President may issue a proclamation to the effect that order has broken down, and that those responsible must disperse. This proclamation is similar to the pre-1947 Riot Act. If order is not restored, the President may direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to apply whatever assets may be necessary to do so. Because of its plenary nature, this presidential authority is not subject to judicial review.

The misinterpretation of the law was evident during the riots in Los Angeles in April, 1992. Rioting broke out after the trial of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers for the beating of Rodney King. The Governor informed the President, and the President issued the required proclamation to disperse, and ordered the Secretary of Defense to employ assets of the DoD to restore order. This sequence of events nationalized the California National Guard and established a Joint Task Force (JTF) with members of the 7th ID and Marines from Camp Pendleton. The misinterpretation of the law was that active duty and guardsmen of the JTF were still under the Posse Comitatus, while the reality was that the Presidential Proclamation and subsequent order to the Secretary of Defense set aside Posse Comitatus. The JTF worked under rules of engagement that were unnecessarily restrictive. The confusion over use and distribution of hardware such as night vision goggles, radios, and helicopters generated undue friction and ill feelings among active duty, National Guard, and LAPD members.