John Whitehead's Commentary
Is the Military Our New Police Force?
Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has kept the country on red alert for terrorist attacks. Despite the fact that Bush officials have been unable to determine when or where or how these attacks might occur, they have pushed through legislation, starting with the USA Patriot Act, to limit freedom, invade privacy and, inadvertently, turn the average American into a prime suspect for terrorism.
Now it seems as if President Bush wants to use the military for domestic law enforcement. He recently asked Congress to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.
Tom Ridge, Bush's acting director of Homeland Security, has suggested that it is "very unlikely" the military would be turned into a national police force, although it might be necessary in the face of a national emergency.
But such promises to refrain from drastic measures can only be taken lightly, coming as they do in the wake of President Bush's now-defunct promise to "not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."
In order to put in place a standing army comprised of members of our military--which is essentially what a national police force would be--the Bush Administration will first have to gain Congress's blessing. And there are good reasons for Congress not to give Bush the go-ahead.
For one, it is questionable whether there is any national emergency that state and local governments could not adequately handle. Past administrations have used military forces in a nonmilitary capacity during national crises as replacements for striking federal employees (for example, postal workers and air traffic controllers) and for disaster relief.
Yet the temptation to use the military to settle domestic disputes has been hard to resist. For example, within one week of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton proposed an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act allowing the military to aid in investigations involving weapons of mass destruction.
And the military has since been enlisted to fight the war on drugs and drug trafficking at home and at our borders.
Since the days of our Founding Fathers, when King George III used his armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies, the American people have understandably distrusted the use of a national military force to intervene in civilian affairs, except in instances of extreme emergency and limited duration.
Hence, as a sign of the Founders' concern that the people not be under the power of a military government, control of the military was vested in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, that control has eroded over time. As Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., writes in Welcome to the Junta: The Erosion of Civilian Control of the U.S. Military, civilian control of the military is undermined whenever military activities invade areas that "endanger liberties or the democratic process, even when that expansion is sanctioned by the civilian leadership."
A standing army--something that propelled the early colonists into revolution--strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. How can there be any semblance of freedom when there are tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and jet fighters patrolling overhead?
Freedom in such an environment would be close to impossible. While a police officer's duty is to keep order, uphold the Constitution and protect an individual's rights, a member of the military has only one objective--to protect and defend the country at any cost, often through the use of deadly force, with no thought of how it might affect the democratic process.
I could understand an exception being made to the Posse Comitatus Act were the U.S. to be invaded by foreign forces. But a standing army would only weaken military readiness against an actual foreign enemy should any real threat arise and destroy the American spirit of independence and liberty.
The Bush Administration can be commended for proposing ever-new ways to prevent another terrorist attack. However, in their hurried attempt to find a solution to further terrorist acts, they are merely plugging holes. In the process the entire constitutional structure is being undermined as the country moves towards a military state.
Now, more than ever, it is time for careful deliberation and thoughtful action. As the old saying goes, "Act in haste, repent at leisure." As politicians try to rush yet another spate of legislation through congressional approvals in an unhappy reenactment of the USA Patriot Act's hurried approval, warning bells sound.
It is possible that the Bush Administration's request for a review of the Posse Comitatus Act is simply another trial balloon floated to test the waters of this post-Sept. 11 culture. But it is a trial balloon that could have disastrous consequences for both the American people and the future of freedom.
Read more about the Posse Comitatus Act. Paste this URL into your browser window:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
Now it seems as if President Bush wants to use the military for domestic law enforcement. He recently asked Congress to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.
Tom Ridge, Bush's acting director of Homeland Security, has suggested that it is "very unlikely" the military would be turned into a national police force, although it might be necessary in the face of a national emergency.
But such promises to refrain from drastic measures can only be taken lightly, coming as they do in the wake of President Bush's now-defunct promise to "not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."
In order to put in place a standing army comprised of members of our military--which is essentially what a national police force would be--the Bush Administration will first have to gain Congress's blessing. And there are good reasons for Congress not to give Bush the go-ahead.
For one, it is questionable whether there is any national emergency that state and local governments could not adequately handle. Past administrations have used military forces in a nonmilitary capacity during national crises as replacements for striking federal employees (for example, postal workers and air traffic controllers) and for disaster relief.
Yet the temptation to use the military to settle domestic disputes has been hard to resist. For example, within one week of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton proposed an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act allowing the military to aid in investigations involving weapons of mass destruction.
And the military has since been enlisted to fight the war on drugs and drug trafficking at home and at our borders.
Since the days of our Founding Fathers, when King George III used his armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies, the American people have understandably distrusted the use of a national military force to intervene in civilian affairs, except in instances of extreme emergency and limited duration.
Hence, as a sign of the Founders' concern that the people not be under the power of a military government, control of the military was vested in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, that control has eroded over time. As Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., writes in Welcome to the Junta: The Erosion of Civilian Control of the U.S. Military, civilian control of the military is undermined whenever military activities invade areas that "endanger liberties or the democratic process, even when that expansion is sanctioned by the civilian leadership."
A standing army--something that propelled the early colonists into revolution--strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. How can there be any semblance of freedom when there are tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and jet fighters patrolling overhead?
Freedom in such an environment would be close to impossible. While a police officer's duty is to keep order, uphold the Constitution and protect an individual's rights, a member of the military has only one objective--to protect and defend the country at any cost, often through the use of deadly force, with no thought of how it might affect the democratic process.
I could understand an exception being made to the Posse Comitatus Act were the U.S. to be invaded by foreign forces. But a standing army would only weaken military readiness against an actual foreign enemy should any real threat arise and destroy the American spirit of independence and liberty.
The Bush Administration can be commended for proposing ever-new ways to prevent another terrorist attack. However, in their hurried attempt to find a solution to further terrorist acts, they are merely plugging holes. In the process the entire constitutional structure is being undermined as the country moves towards a military state.
Now, more than ever, it is time for careful deliberation and thoughtful action. As the old saying goes, "Act in haste, repent at leisure." As politicians try to rush yet another spate of legislation through congressional approvals in an unhappy reenactment of the USA Patriot Act's hurried approval, warning bells sound.
It is possible that the Bush Administration's request for a review of the Posse Comitatus Act is simply another trial balloon floated to test the waters of this post-Sept. 11 culture. But it is a trial balloon that could have disastrous consequences for both the American people and the future of freedom.
Read more about the Posse Comitatus Act. Paste this URL into your browser window:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
