An exception to the Posse Comitatus Act allowed
troops to patrol New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina
Update: The Army acknowledges that regular troops were dispatched to Samson, and says an inquiry is under way.
Rightfully so, attention after the recent mass shooting in Alabama focused on the trail of blood left by Michael McLendon, a former police officer on a rampage. But several Reuters photos taken after the incident, showing Army troops from nearby Fort Rucker patrolling the streets of Samson, Alabama, are starting to draw attention. The use of military personnel in a police role often raises concerns given their different missions and training. The practice is also, despite loosening of statutes in recent years, almost certainly illegal under federal law.
Passed in the wake of Reconstruction, when formerly rebellious regions of the country chafed under military occupation, the Posse Comitatus Act reads:
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.
The motivation for the law is clear. Military personnel are trained and equipped to wage war against an enemy. Police are trained to maintain order and keep the peace among their neighbors. The two roles don't interchange very well -- as has been amply demonstrated by the carnage resulting in recent years from increased police use of military tactics.
The Posse Comitatus law was specifically crafted to prevent the federal government from exercising direct, armed control over states and localities. As such, it doesn't apply to the National Guard, unless those state troops are federalized and placed under the command of the Army.
The Posse Comitatus Act "remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter."
-- Major Craig Trebilcock, a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve
The federal government has also moved in recent years to erode restrictions on the use of the military's vast assets for law enforcement operations. The military is now explicitly authorized to participate in drug enforcement efforts, as well as to help control immigration and collect tariffs. States can also call on federal troops to put down insurrections or help with natural disasters. The federal government can send troops of its own accord to suppress rebellions or when "major public emergencies" render state and local authorities incapable of protecting people's constitutionally guaranteed rights.
That's a lot of exceptions, but the Posse Comitatus Act remains in force. Even Major Craig Trebilcock, a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve, in an article otherwise dedicated to defending the domestic use of the military in anti-terrorism operations, conceded the law "remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter."
And the mass murder of ten people, horrible as it is, is a civilian law enforcement matter that simply doesn't rise to the level of a natural disaster or a regional insurrection.
Of course, it's possible the photos got it wrong. Fort Rucker is an Army aviation center and, as such, an unlikely source for combat troops. Reuters, too, is a European news agency whose employees may be less aware of the difference between the regular Army and the National Guard.
As of press time, the Fort Rucker media office had not yet responded to inquiries regarding the use of troops in a police role or their status under the Posse Comitatus Act.
The fact remains that there is a law restricting the use of military personnel in a law-enforcement capacity, and that law is based in sound reasoning. Troops trained and equipped for combat are a less than ideal choice for filling the roles of civilian police. If it turns out that the Army did, indeed, patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, we should be concerned about the government's willingness to stretch or exceed the law to put troops where they don't belong.
Update: The Army acknowledges that regular troops were dispatched to Samson, and says an inquiry is under way.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
Very interesting article. I remember hearing the deputy sheriff whose wife and daughter were killed saying that their little town wasn't equipped to handle 2 homicides, much less something on this scale. I imagined that they would have called in the state police but I confess I got that idea from too many years of watching Andy Griffith. What IS the standard in a situation like this? Do you know?
This is not an exception to Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act was suspended by Bush in 2006. It is now "legal." I'm not sure that its suspension was a legal act. But, that's what happened. That's why people are seeing the army doing check points all over the place in CA, TX and AZ.
Karen, J.D. has another article in his list here about towns in Texas where the local cops are stealing from motorists. The original story doesn't tell it all. This has been an on-going problem for years and years. What they do is call in the next highest up organization (not the Army or Nat'l Guard!). The unfortunate problem is that the Texas State government is no less corrupt, so the problem continues. Bringing in the Army or Nat'l guard, however, is just going to get people killed. That's what those guys are trained to do - kill people and break things. There is never any reason for U.S. military or anyone else's military to be deployed inside the U.S.
The Mexicans are doing this now. You can't drive far in Mexico without being pulled over by Army. They are thieves and worse. And, now, it is the Army that has escalated violence in cities like Juarez.
This is why you don't deploy the army domestically!
I know that the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" is often said to have superseded the Posse Comitatus Act, but that's not a universally accepted interpretation. The bill basically created Section 333 in the law (linked above from "major emergencies"), but as broad as that law is (and it's very broad), it'd be a stretch to fit the aftermath of a murder, in which the perpetrator is dead, into the law.
Karen, usually, local authorities call on their neighbors in that state and other states, and the state government. It's only federal troops that are limited.
JD says 2007 and Angela says 2006. JD at least quoted an act. Is it time to ask Obama to put these laws and bush on trial for abuses Bush caused under the guise of the war on terror?
Sure, but have you considered that states are states and, under the constitution, not *actually* subject to federal law. We're all members of the Union by choice. What's good for the State is up to the State, and as such, not subject to Federal law.
All I'm saying is that, unless the local State law mandates otherwise, what the Feds say doesn't apply. Federal authorities may not have the right to impose federal or military agents, but the States have that right.
Well unless this issue of the military being used as a policing force and even conducting manuevers in urban areas,such as recently in New Orleans (not talking about post-Katrina), is addressed, be ready to see more of it.
The Warner Act if 2007 was signed by Bush in 2006. Look it up, yourself. It's not hard to find. It does appear to contradict Posse Comitatus. "Contradict" or "repeal" - I'm not sure it makes much difference now.
These troops make mischief by their very nature. They are there under the guise of "helping." Don't expect Obama to help. He's friends with Bush and pushing the terrifying agenda to overturn our Constitution through with lightning speed. Fortunately, more than half of the states are saying that they will resist martial law - that's what this is when troops are illegally on US streets - but, it is still happening. It's happening in TX even though the reps in that state grudgingly signed a bill to the contrary. So... I don't know where this could end up. But, it doesn't look good.
The public is obviously being conditioned to seeing U.S. troops on the streets. Once a precedent is set, there's more to follow. The international banker & military industrial complex crowd is doing everything they can to destroy the Constitution and break the law, because they have truly hijacked our great nation.
I highly suggest checking out the movie "9/11 Martial Law" by Alex Jones on Google Video. He can be a bit dramatic, but then again, when Americans are losing their freedoms in the name of "security", I'm glad someone besides Chuck Norris has the balls to stand up and say something about it.
Makes sense to me dude!
RT
www.online-privacy.pro.tc
You do realize that these are National Guard troops, and not Acvtive Army. They're deployed by the Governor of the State. They are allowed to deployed in a "disaster". Besides, they're wearing the maroon beret, which is Army intelligence. There's something strange about this picture...
Are you kidding me? There were multiple crime scenes if I have read correctly, the small police force was incapable of securing the crime scenes. They called for help... I live in a small town and if there were a killing spree here i would hope the police would call for whatever help they could to keep order.
All this talk of being conditioned is just a bunch of crazy stupidity. And the article writer is a bit of a drama queen himself.
"Troops trained and equipped for combat are a less than ideal choice for filling the roles of civilian police"
Have you heard of Military Police? That is there job, the very SAME job of civilian police. They give speeding tickets, DUI's, drug arrests, investigations and the like. These were the people called, not infantryman with gear ready to invade the town.
Marc H -
Maroon berets are for AIRBORNE soldiers, not military intelligence. Please consult AR 670-1 if you need proof.
Any one else think its interesting that we get up in arms about soldiers policing our streets, but it is ok for them to police Iraqi or other countries?
Richard,
Nothing hard to understand. Soldiers and police are not the same thing. Soldiers fight in foreign countries. Police protect people domestically. The two are not supposed to meet. When they do meet, there are usually disastrous results.
I think it's a question of timing, in this case. Right now we know that the shooter was a US civilian, but during his rampage I don't think that was known. If the authorities thought there was a chance that a Mumbai-style attack was underway, then it's appropriate for troops to be dispatched - provided they are sent back to base after the true nature of the attack is discovered.
So, since there's so much civilian "guessing" going on here, MP's were NEVER meant to police American streets so get that out of the mix. Also, anyone that's ever been in the military should know that we in Airborne wore Maroon berets you maroon Marc H.. Also, each state in the USA has either State Police who are dispatched when locals cannot handle the issue or Sheriff's deputies or Highway Patrol type units as well as SWAT so even suggesting that military units be used is idiotic and AGAINST THE LAW. If you don't know what you're talking about, shut the hell up!!
Fort Rucker still has Military Police
Fred Fakle is an idiot... WE in Airborne, shut the F-UP IDIOT.
Very well put Richard. Fred Fakle is still an idiot.
Wait, Chris is an idiot to; for quoting the army regulations. WHAT A HOME-OH
OH AND BY THE WAY DID NO ONE NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO MAGAZINE (Clip for you ghetto people) IN THAT WEAPON!!!
"render state and local authorities incapable" (that's probably for certain, I've lived a few hours from there)
Anyway, who cares. I'm sure no one in the town was complaining. Motivation was probably JUST given the uncertainty of the motives. Unlike most of our "boots on the ground". Quit being a lawyer. Next story...
Hector and Chris are both idiots. You can both read, right? Under the picture, it indicates these are troops in NOLA after Katrina. You did notice the water in the picture, right? I don't recall seeing that this story was about flood prevention in Samson. There are plenty of other photos of MPs roving the streets of Samson. Do a little more looking, learn to read, and then make a comment. This should help you sound more intelligent in the future.
And Marc, these troops are RA, not Guard or Reserve. The Army admitted this.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the gunman killed himself & so was no longer a threat. So what are the extra police needed for?
You are incorrect in your photo caption that an exception (such as those found in the insurrection statutes at Title 10, Chapter 15) was used for the 82nd AB DIV troops to patrol the streets. Neither the LA Governor nor the President chose to invoke the Insurrection statutes, so the Active Component Soldiers were limited in that they could only provide "support" vice "directly participate" in law enforcement matters. The National Guard was able to enforce law, under state law, as they remained under the control of the Governor, therefore not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.
To clarify below statement, the soldier in the pic is carrying a weapon in self-defense, not as a patrolling soldier to enforce the law. A fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!