QFM

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Delaware Dem says:

   July 27, 2009 at 8:05 am

   Well, it is illegal for one. The Posse Commitatus Act forbids the deployment of the U.S. Military on American soil for anything related to law enforcement. And yes, that includes arresting terror suspects.

   And I would argue that it is unconstitutional under the spirit of the 3rd and 10th Amendments. Now, this should make the winger’s head explode.

2. callerRick says:

   July 27, 2009 at 9:01 am

   True, but since when does Congress obey the Constitution?

3. Rhymes With Right says:

   July 27, 2009 at 9:03 am

   There’s only a problem if one concedes that Lincoln’s deployment of the United States military against the Confederacy was unconstitutional.

4. anon says:

   July 27, 2009 at 9:07 am

   …if one concedes that Lincoln’s deployment of the United States military against the Confederacy was unconstitutional.

   Is that your position?

5. delacrat says:

   July 27, 2009 at 10:02 am

   We have the INS, FBI, DEA, ATF, Coast Guard, state and local police forces, and school security, transit authority, and housing authority police to arrest people. And that’s not enough?

6. Delaware Dem says:

   July 27, 2009 at 11:07 am

   My Republican friends should be aware that the reason we are asking this question this morning is because Bush and Cheney contemplated deploying the military to Buffalo, NY to capture the Lackawanna Six.

7. Steve Newton says:

   July 27, 2009 at 11:40 am

   Everyone should remember that this is no abstract issue based on Bush several years ago…

   Since last year the Defense Department has been redeploying, retraining and reinforcing the 3rd Infantry Division for use in “domestic disturbances” with virtually no MSM comment [locally both DV and I posted on it], and that process continues unabated under Obama.

   DD, while I agree that you are right about both the BoR and Posse Comitatus, the military does not. Bush 41 and Clinton both had JAG officers writing opinions about the elastic nature of PC since 1991-1992; Clinton’s interest was led by AG Reno’s anger that she could not use military equipment and troops at Waco TX.

   My hope is that this story will jar some people to realize that there is a longterm redefinition of the military’s role in civil events.

8. Suzanne says:

   July 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm

   I don’t think the Army has any business in arresitng US citizens. That’s what our national and local law enforcement agencies are for. THe Army, in my opinion, is here to defend he US against “outside intruders” or, if neccessary, on foreign soil. We have enough law enforcement agencies that can arrest US citizens if needed.

9. Susan Regis Collins says:

   July 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm

   When the regular army rounds up the citizenry and makes arrests Ibeleive it’s called a police state.

   To those above saying ‘they’ can not be deployed on our soil…what about Kent State or don’t weekend warriors qualify as ‘Army’ and if that be the case why are they in Iraq and Afganistan?????

10. Phil says:

    July 27, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    I’m tired of you idiots. If it is the national guard, then it is a state militia. It is not a federal force. And when the “weekend warriors” are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, their orders change to title 10 bringing them under federal command.

    So, to sum it up, Guard is a state militia, and when they are activated, they become federal soldiers. They are not both at the same time.

    (pssst, Kent state involved national guard)

11. Rhymes With Right says:

    July 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Well, folks — was Lincoln’s deployment of US troops on American soil against the CSA constitutional or not?

    What about Washington’s deployment of troops during the so-called Whiskey Rebellion?