Monday, September 19, 2005

Here's our bad idea of the week.

Military May Play Bigger Role in Future Disaster Response

In his post-Hurricane Katrina speech last Thursday (September 15th), President Bush spoke about the unmatched logistical ability of the military and how it would be a good idea to have them play a role in responding to future major disasters. Pentagon officials are reviewing that possibility, and some in Congress are saying it should be considered.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act enacted after the Civil War, the military may not engage in actions that can be defined as law enforcement on American soil. Consequently, the active duty forces that did go to the Gulf area in Katrina's wake only engaged in search-and-rescue mission and evacuations. But in addition to the legal restrictions, presidents have been leery of the image of federal troops patrolling in their own country or of embarrassing state and local officials.

Allowing military response domestically in the future raises many questions, key among them whether Congress should define when to trigger the president's authority to send federal troops in an emergency, whether or not a governor agreed.

What do you think of the idea of changing -- eliminating -- Posse Comitatus to allow the military to respond domestically to disasters?

Terrible idea!

6 Comments:

At 4:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google "Bonus March". That will give you one damn good reason not to change the Posse Comitatus provisions.

Very sad time in American history.

"Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it".

 
At 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not take this to extremes here, guys. At what point in a war, for instance, do we allow the military to have a military presence on home soil? After we are invaded? Extreme case, I know. But, I am in favor of the military helping with border control. I feel we have been invaded there.

And in cases of extreme disasters where the local authorities do not have the manpower available to control law and order, I have no problem there. What is the alternative? Good folks take up arms against bad folks ... now there's some fun!!

Congress does have the ability to suspend the act on an individual basis and not blindly sweep the law away. That should be sufficient.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much red tape is envolved to "suspend the act on an indvidual basis"? RED TAPE seems to be the biggest loser in the "blame game".

If our great government wants to "cut the red tape" - then they will mess with Posse Comitatus, and God help us all.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much red tape is envolved to "suspend the act on an indvidual basis"? RED TAPE seems to be the biggest loser in the "blame game".

If our great government wants to "cut the red tape" - then they will mess with Posse Comitatus, and God help us all.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much red tape is envolved to "suspend the act on an indvidual basis"? RED TAPE seems to be the biggest loser in the "blame game".

If our great government wants to "cut the red tape" - then they will mess with Posse Comitatus, and God help us all.

 
At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think we need to change the law because of the disaster created by one incompetent Governor and one idiot Mayor. You don't see these kinds of problems in other disaster areas because they have REAL leadership. It would make more sense to remove Blanco and Nagin on the grounds that they don't have more than three functioning brain cells between them, and put some people in there who know what they are doing and will actually follow the disaster plan they developed for just this type of catastrophe.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home