The AP is reporting an investigation is underway into 22 U.S. Army Military Police personnel being sent by someone to Samson Alabama in the aftermath of the shootings there. The use of the military in domestic situations is limited by the 131-year-old federal Posse Comitatus Act.
Historically, the Posse Comitatus Act has been defined by federal courts as allowing federal troops supportive or passive roles, rather than active roles. Active roles include arrest and collection of evidence. Passive support includes logistical support to civilian law enforcement agencies.
ReplyDeleteBecause the military possesses uniquely trained personnel and unique equipment, courts have continued to hold that the provision of supplies, training, facilities, equipment and certain types of intelligence information does not violate the act. The military may also be involved in planning civilian law enforcement operations, provided that the arrest of suspects and seizure of evidence is done by civilian LEOs.
Ref: State v. Nelson, 298 NC 573, 260 SE 2d 629, cert den; 446 U.S. 929, 100 S. Ct. 1867, 64 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1980).
Ref: United States v. Red Feather, 392 F. Supp. 916 (DC SD 1975).
However, in the recently past years, the PCA has been eroded by the use of federal troops for what have essentially been civilian events, such as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, where over 10,000 active duty military service members were deployed using the rationale that their presence deterred terrorism. Their mere presence was not a violation of the act. However, the question of impropriety arose because in large part, they served as bus drivers, and field maintenance workers. Congress expressed their displeasure at the actions, which was also reported in Defense Week magazine, 22 July 1996 in an article entitled “Business, Capitol Hill Question Military’s Role in Olympics.”
Thanks Kevin. The question here seems to be one of chian-of-command...just who asked for the assistance and who supplied it. Alway good to be vigilant in the way the military is used, no?
ReplyDeleteMost definitely, YES! The price of liberty, as has often been said, is eternal vigilance.
ReplyDeleteMy concern in regard to any "Chain of Command" investigation is that it has seemed that such investigations into it - most often after some event - have frequently become career-ending "witch hunts" insofar as they produce little or no evidence of wrong-doing.
In short, it's a "who do we blame" game.
My concern is that this effort not become such.
Were any laws broken? Presumably not. At least, I hope not.
And as a military veteran, I understand Chain of Command and it's proper use.
So from that perspective, it seems to be (as is being reported, and as you indicate) a question of determining if the person who so ordered troops to support civil Law Enforcement Officers properly authorized to do so.
But I thought determining "responsibility" was a good core value. The old "if nobody is responsible, then everybody is...". Complaints need to be investigated, otherwise the gatekeeper who decides nothing is wrong becomes King of the World (Or General of The Army" (-:
ReplyDeleteP.S. I'm a Vet too.