| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| U.S. considers use of military as police officers |
| 2002-07-22 |
| Homeland security chief Tom Ridge said the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law. President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police activity on U.S. soil. Ridge said Sunday that it ''goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest'' and called the prospect ''very unlikely.'' But he said the government is wise to examine the law. Examining it is fine, but using the Regulars for domestic police duties is a crummy idea. Cops aren't soldiers, and soldiers aren't coppers, with the exception of military police. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the Posse Comitatus Act. Minor adjustments to the law might allow deputizing MPs and military investigators, but we'd be a lot better off leaving civil police functions, to include domestic antiterrorism investigations, under the control of civil police. The slope's just too slippery. On the other hand, there's nothing to prevent military resources from supporting the civil authorities where it makes sense; for instance, ground surveillance radars would be handy things to have along the northern and southern borders, assuming the Army could afford to loan the radars and their operators out. But they'd be supporting the Border Patrol, not Army operations. In this case, it's a common sense thing, not a principle thing, though I'll admit that common sense is an uncommon commodity. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |