question about a military term I heard in 24 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Shokan · 06-18-2004, 06:16 AM

In Season 2, episode 18, there is a scene of a meeting with the president, joint cheif of staff(bald actor, Mike) and various other military people. The president states he wants the U.S Army to be on standby to control panic, but Mike says they can't do that. The president says its because of something he says in Latin. I assume this is a legal thing forbidding the Army to do that. Mike even states that the proper people to do this is the Navy or the Marines. Why is that?

In a state of national panic (ie violence, looting, riots) why wouldn't the Army be called upon to not do this?

onetime2 · 06-18-2004, 06:22 AM

The Posse Comitatus Act does not allow the US military to be deployed domestically as a police force (except in limited circumstances). I believe the Act specifically names the Army and Air Force but does not specify the Navy and the Marine Corps. So, the argument could be made that they are not governed by this Act.

Bill O'Rights · 06-18-2004, 06:42 AM

Exactly. One of those limited circumstances is the "loan" of Military Working Dogs, and thier handlers, for search and recovery missions.

Shokan · 06-18-2004, 07:00 AM

What would be the reason for this Act?

edit - Here is a detailed desciption I found

Posse Comitatus Act
Source: G-OPL

"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.

Source - http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/f...Comitatus.html

onetime2 · 06-18-2004, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shokan
What would be the reason for this Act?

Several I suspect. One being that the deployment of military forces is pretty fearsome. Tanks, helicopters, transports, and, of course, the soldiers/sailors/marines moving swiftly in coordination can be pretty overwhelming. It's not an exaggeration that it in itself could cause panic among civilians not used to it.

Additionally it makes it more difficult for civilian government leaders to use military force to put down protests, uprisings, etc. Letting the military loose generally means things will be broken and people will be killed. Not exactly what you want to see happening on your street.

Macheath · 06-18-2004, 07:45 AM

It reminds be of another interesting quirk of the US system of Governmental checks and balances - that the people charged with the President's personal protection (the secret service) are a division of the Department of the Treasury rather than State, Justice or Defence.

Anyway, I've noticed that both 24 and the West Wing pay entertaining attention to detail when it comes to this kind of thing.

DelayedReaction · 06-18-2004, 08:23 AM

There are a bunch of very good reasons, the biggest one being that the purpose of the armed forces is to defend our country, not police it. I think the movie The Siege actually did a pretty reasonable job of showing of what would happen if the Army were to engage in law enforcement. Police are trained to deal with criminals, soldiers are trained to deal with other soldiers.

ratbastid · 06-18-2004, 08:45 AM

Using the military as an internal police force is one hallmark of despotic and dictatorial regimes around the world. Think about how widely feared the Iraqi National Guard was by Iraqis.

Posse Comitatus prevents those sorts of abuses by US leaders.

tropple · 06-18-2004, 09:31 AM

Yes. We don't need the military.

After all we have the DEA, the BATF, and the ever loved SS, er, I meant HS (Homeland Security) forces.

As long as abusive and despotic has been mentioned, what arfe your general thoughts on the Patriot Act II features being stuffed into "must pass" legislation?

RAGEAngel9 · 06-18-2004, 09:35 AM

For the Secret Service thing, it's because they started out as(and still are also) money cops. I.E. the stop counterfiters and stuff.

MXL · 06-18-2004, 11:03 AM

The Park police are responsible for the Presidential motorcades and other VIP motorcades. Why? Because the Park police are the only police force who have national jurisdiction.

Yakk · 06-18-2004, 11:26 AM

In the end it is about checks and balances.

The President has direct military control over the DoD. This law was intended to mean that before the President can use the DoD to enforce his will, he'd have to get specific congressional permission.

It places a line far away from despotism that the President isn't allowed to cross. This makes it harder for the President to creep up to despotism in small steps.

Practically, as noted above, the Army isn't a very good police force. They are trained to kill people, not protect people.

As with most checks and balances, there are holes all through it. Newer military corps aren't included. Dispite the fact that checks and balances leak, their existance seemed to have kept the USA from falling into a complete despotism.

06-18-2004, 06:16 AM	#1 (permalink)
Shokan Addict Location: Canada	question about a military term I heard in 24 In Season 2, episode 18, there is a scene of a meeting with the president, joint cheif of staff(bald actor, Mike) and various other military people. The president states he wants the U.S Army to be on standby to control panic, but Mike says they can't do that. The president says its because of something he says in Latin. I assume this is a legal thing forbidding the Army to do that. Mike even states that the proper people to do this is the Navy or the Marines. Why is that? In a state of national panic (ie violence, looting, riots) why wouldn't the Army be called upon to not do this? __________________ Legalize it.

06-18-2004, 06:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The Posse Comitatus Act does not allow the US military to be deployed domestically as a police force (except in limited circumstances). I believe the Act specifically names the Army and Air Force but does not specify the Navy and the Marine Corps. So, the argument could be made that they are not governed by this Act. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

06-18-2004, 06:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Exactly. One of those limited circumstances is the "loan" of Military Working Dogs, and thier handlers, for search and recovery missions. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

06-18-2004, 07:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
Shokan Addict Location: Canada	What would be the reason for this Act? edit - Here is a detailed desciption I found Posse Comitatus Act Source: G-OPL "POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement. Source - http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/f...Comitatus.html __________________ Legalize it.

06-18-2004, 08:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	There are a bunch of very good reasons, the biggest one being that the purpose of the armed forces is to defend our country, not police it. I think the movie The Siege actually did a pretty reasonable job of showing of what would happen if the Army were to engage in law enforcement. Police are trained to deal with criminals, soldiers are trained to deal with other soldiers. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

06-18-2004, 07:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	It reminds be of another interesting quirk of the US system of Governmental checks and balances - that the people charged with the President's personal protection (the secret service) are a division of the Department of the Treasury rather than State, Justice or Defence. Anyway, I've noticed that both 24 and the West Wing pay entertaining attention to detail when it comes to this kind of thing.

06-18-2004, 08:45 AM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Using the military as an internal police force is one hallmark of despotic and dictatorial regimes around the world. Think about how widely feared the Iraqi National Guard was by Iraqis. Posse Comitatus prevents those sorts of abuses by US leaders.

06-18-2004, 09:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
tropple Junkie	Yes. We don't need the military. After all we have the DEA, the BATF, and the ever loved SS, er, I meant HS (Homeland Security) forces. As long as abusive and despotic has been mentioned, what arfe your general thoughts on the Patriot Act II features being stuffed into "must pass" legislation? __________________ +++++++++++Boom!

06-18-2004, 09:35 AM	#10 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	For the Secret Service thing, it's because they started out as(and still are also) money cops. I.E. the stop counterfiters and stuff.

06-18-2004, 11:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
MXL Tilted Location: Maryland	The Park police are responsible for the Presidential motorcades and other VIP motorcades. Why? Because the Park police are the only police force who have national jurisdiction.

06-18-2004, 11:26 AM	#12 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	In the end it is about checks and balances. The President has direct military control over the DoD. This law was intended to mean that before the President can use the DoD to enforce his will, he'd have to get specific congressional permission. It places a line far away from despotism that the President isn't allowed to cross. This makes it harder for the President to creep up to despotism in small steps. Practically, as noted above, the Army isn't a very good police force. They are trained to kill people, not protect people. As with most checks and balances, there are holes all through it. Newer military corps aren't included. Dispite the fact that checks and balances leak, their existance seemed to have kept the USA from falling into a complete despotism. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.