The Posse Comitatus is not a rap group; it’s an 1878 Reconstruction era act that prohibits the use of Federal troops in domestic law enforcement. This act has steadily been worn away over the last few decades by such things as the dubious war on drugs, but as something which limits the power of the Federal Government, you would expect it to be something Republicans would support.
It seems instead to be on the enemies list. According to AP military writer Robert Burns, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Sept 15th, said, "I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act." He advocated giving the president and the secretary of defense "correct standby authorities" to manage disasters. Is this another stunning example of the Ruling junta, who having campaigned on reducing untrustworthy Federal Power for decades, now asking us to trust us, we’re the Government? Arguments are being offered by Administration shamans that Posse Comitatus is obsolete. One member of the JAG OFFice calls it a myth. I see it as a thickening of the plot.
The slippery slope argument is really a fallacy, yet how many examples of the Federal Government arrogating large increments in authority do we need to see an emerging pattern? Do they plan to use the Marines to further steamroll States Rights or is this truly a disaster plan that is needed to put a band aid on a situation caused by having sent the Guard to Iraq?
Perhaps when George Bush told us he didn’t trust the Federal Government but trusted us, he meant it. Perhaps he’s changed his mind. Perhaps he envisions declaring a state of emergency and using Federal troops to seize absolute power. Maybe not, but has he ever told us the truth about anything?
"I think the American people—I hope the American–I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me." — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Aaarrrggghhh!!!!!
Posse Comitatus only says military can't arrest someone. Doesn't say they can't save someone like after a hurricane. It's another let's fix it Republican idea they had waiting on the shelf like the Patriot Act (ever wonder how they drafted it so fast?). Whatever they do to it it surely will be worse.
Since the President could always declare a state of siege (or marshal law) Posse Comitatus could be effectively abrogated at least temporarily without rewriting the the laws. The restrictions came about after obvious abuses following the Civil War. The example in New Orleans, I believe, shows us where a much greater role for our federal troops within our borders during some events would be wholly desirable. I happen to agree in this case that the law as it exists is obsolete. The military has a clear, unambiguous chain of command about which no one ever has to stop and wonder, or reject or debate it. This kind of order - and organization - has its place. I don't see this as a problem.
And if you really believe that the "slippery slope" argument is fallacious, why would this be problematical if the new law is clear about limits and circumstances that would trigger employment of federal troops in that expanded role with in CONUS? (Or, were you being facetious when you dismissed that S.S. process out of hand?)
Just my 2 cents worth.
I'm usually being facetious when I say anything, but the SS argument really is a falacy. The assumption that if we do 1 will do another and another is just an assumption. You'll find it dismissed in detail in any logic book. You'll notice however that I used it here anyway in that I understand your argument about PC but see it as a possible increment in Federal control over citizens. It may seem and may be paranoid, but many my paranoid fantasies seem to be coming true. As usual, I hope I'm wrong.
To Cranky - Arresting anyone doesn't seem necessary any more - they can simply hold you indefinately without charges.
I don't have a background in law - obviously, but I wonder, since everything else this government does has a sinister purpose hidden in it, is this not another step toward using the military to gain absolute control by the President?
I actually got an 'A' in Logic in college, but it was a math course, not philosophy, so I confess, I still don't understand the problem with the "slippery slope" argument. It's one of those things whose truth seems obvious to me, but I'm not much of an abstract thinker, so I'm sure I'm not hitting the level of analysis I should :-)
You know, I never believe anything sinister that's ascribed to our government (either party) until I'm proven wrong (which occurs over and over again.) So when you suggest scenarios wherein the president would use our military in some illegal or ingenious way to extend his term, my first reaction is "only in some Sylvester Stallone movie" and then I think about it for a while, and I start to get worried. The longer I'm around, the fewer things there are that surprise me. For all our sakes, I hope we're both way off the mark!
I thought the link I provided to SS was pretty good. There may be a slippery slope, but the unfounded assumption is that the slide is inevitable and irreversible. Gas prices have doubled in the last few years, so soon they will quadruple. Maybe so, but the argument had nothing to do with it. Pendulums do swing.
If you can remember college you're way ahead of me though.
We all have much to lose if things get as bad as I fear, but it's usually complacency and reluctance to face facts that makes things get worse.
Capt. Fogg:
The only reason I remember the "A" in Logic, is because Math 107 (Contemporary Mathematics) was the only "D" I ever got in my college life. We were allowed to re-take courses (D and below) where I went to school, and the second time around, the new professor decided that "contemporary math" would be a course in Logic (so it didn't even resemble the original course.) So, my "A" replaced the "D" and consequently, I still remember that. Any other course (or subject from my college days), and I'd have been out of luck in terms of remembering the grade. :)
And yes, I now see your point about the "slippery slope" being a falacy as a rule or natural law. There's no cause and effect, just an increased tendency. Maybe we should call it the "slippery precedent..." LOL
A slipperey precedent from a slippery President?
Post a Comment