You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
51st State.
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
It actually did apply to territories, at the time much of the U.S. was territories. Certainly the DoD legal interpretation today is that it applies in all U.S. territories. The Central High case was probably a violation of PC, it just wasn't ever litigated to the Supreme Court because Arkansas didn't want scrutiny on the underlying event that brought a need for the violation in the first place. It was certainly an anomaly and not something that happens all the time. The 2007 Defense Authorization Act changes were repealed in 2008, reinstating the Insurrection Act as I alluded to in my first post, so we're back to pre-Bush law on that. There's actually a pretty clear path and precedent toward military action without a declaration of war, while PC is one of the most cut and dry prohibitions out there and one that again most Americans are universally against abusing. Funny that you'd say "welcome to the U.S. Police State" but advocate for use of military as police!Oh, but they can and have, and not confusing National Guard.. The original act doesn't even apply to territories. Here are just a few of numerous exceptions, even domestic! 1957 Eisenhower, troops to the Deep South. ( a later Enforcement Act allowed many exceptions.*) Changes in the P.C. Act were incorporated in the 2007 Defense Auth. Act, Bush) In fact you've made me realize there would be no legal impediment at all if the President tomorrow wanted to order U.S. Troops to go into Puerto Rico to maintain order. If he wanted to send them to Montana, that might raise eyebrows, but certainly not to Puerto Rico. Welcome to the U.S. Police State.
From Wiki.
*The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.
Sig, it is just like we can't go to war without Congress declaring war. Yah, right!
Anyway, interesting divergence into Posse Comitatus but I think other federal forces, i.e. the FBI, could go a long way to cleaning up the corruption and there's no need for soldiers on the streets. I've been to Puerto Rico twice in the past couple years on non-vacation business and most Puerto Ricans I spoke with would be happier than any of us to see the corruption go. No reason Puerto Rico shouldn't be a U.S. hub in the Caribbean and N. South America along with a big tourist destination. Maybe a bailout is what it takes to put the full focus on U.S. law enforcement on the island and clean it up for good! The other factor that weighs significantly in favor of a cleanup are all the educated and skill Puerto Ricans who've been abandoning the Island for the last decade. Turn it around and get just a fraction to come back and you'll have a very positive feedback loop.
The wording used in the Act is "Domestic." Are territories overseas "domestic"? I don't think so. Currently, the FBI is active in Puerto Rico! They have to keep their activities undercover and not let the Puerto Rican Police know what they are doing, because the local police will tip off the targets of their investigations. So I have been told, anyway.. I am in total agreement that Puerto Rico has tremendous potential. But at present it is a cesspool of corruption. It is not going to fix itself without direct outside intervention. The Control Board is a first step, but not nearly enough.It actually did apply to territories
Last edited:
Yes. If you mean contiguous U.S. territories or continental United States you specifically say so, otherwise any territory of the U.S. is by definition domestic. Domestic simply means part of the United States. As someone who's lived in both Alaska and Hawaii I can tell you there is no end to the frustration there from those who somehow feel that not touching another state somehow makes one less "domestic"!The wording used is "Domestic." Are territories overseas "domestic"?
Don't agree. Regardless the "Enforcement Acts passed later would allow U.S. Troops to be sent, no question about that. Did all those U.S. Calvery Troops sent to the Western Territories to round up unruly indians violate Posse?otherwise any territory of the U.S. is by definition domestic.
Last edited:
So Hawaii isn't domestic because there's some water between it and the other states, and any law that uses the term domestic doesn't apply there?Don't agree. Regardless the "Enforcement Acts passed later would allow U.S. Troops to be sent, no question about that. Did all those U.S. Calvery Troops sent to the Western Territories to round up unruly indians violate Posse?
No, this has nothing to do with the difference between a territory like Puerto Rico and a State like Hawaii. There is much the same difference between territories and the States today then in the nineteenth Century. That is why Posse did tot preclude sending U.S. troops into the territories to maintain order. Again the wording in Posse is very specific! It is "domestic". Your interpretation of domestic meaning territory is incorrect. Puerto Rico, for example has its own government. Puerto Ricans do not pay U.S income taxes. They have independent IRA rules, and their laws are largely independent of U.S. laws, though they mimic them. The U.S. can impose its will on Puerto Rico whenever is so chooses. It is a piece of land owned by the U.S. but it is not a State. Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico can't vote in U.S. elections. They are citizens not constitutionally but by statute. There is a world of difference. Posse does not apply to Puerto Rico. But even if it did, it would be instantly circumventable via "Enforcement Acts" passed later, if it was decided that the local Puerto Rican Government was incapable or was refusing to maintain law and order.So Hawaii isn't domestic because there's some water between it and the other states, and any law that uses the term domestic doesn't apply there?
And Rhode Island barely has 1 million people.Unless they put in 2 Republicans. But there are limits to how many Representatives we can have. They only have 3.5 million people in PR. That is about half the population of Dallas/Ft Worth. I guess that works out to 2 Representatives.
I wonder how that works in a non census year.
Do you take 2 from a state you don't like and redraw their boundaries?
Anyhow, it's about time. They should have done it a long time ago.
We've devolved into an academic discussion here but it's fun so to continue... Navy ships carry Coast Guard law enforcement detachments whenever they're conducting law enforcement operations anywhere in the world specifically because Posse Comitatus prohibits Navy and Marine personnel from engaging in law enforcement (the Coast Guard is statutorily tasked with law enforcement). This is a massive pain in the ass, we wouldn't do it if your definition of PC was the legally accepted interpretation. If 5,000 miles away from the nearest land (or 50 feet of Puerto Rico, in some cases since a lot of those patrols are conducted in that area) is considered subject to PC, then certainly Puerto Rico is! Again, believe me, I've sat through numerous classes on this, it was part of my profession (I was a military officer). Certainly you could form a tortured logic chain a la the Bush administration on torture that would allow for it, but it's certainly not the currently accepted view of the law and it would take more than the gradual decline into oblivion of PR to cause an about face on that interpretation. Not to mention, as I stated previously you'd be doing a huge disservice to the Marines to set them up for failure in a task that they're neither trained or equipped for.No, this has nothing to do with the difference between a territory like Puerto Rico and a State like Hawaii. There is much the same difference between territories and the States today then in the nineteenth Century. That is why Posse did tot preclude sending U.S. troops into the territories to maintain order. Again the wording in Posse is very specific! It is "domestic". Your interpretation of domestic meaning territory is incorrect. Puerto Rico, for example has its own government. Puerto Ricans do not pay U.S income taxes. They have independent IRA rules, and their laws are largely independent of U.S. laws, though they mimic them. The U.S. can impose its will on Puerto Rico whenever is so chooses. It is a piece of land owned by the U.S. but it is not a State. Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico can't vote in U.S. elections. They are citizens not constitutionally but by statute. There is a world of difference. Posse does not apply to Puerto Rico. But even if it did, it would be instantly circumventable via "Enforcement Acts" passed later, if it was decided that the local Puerto Rican Government was incapable or was refusing to maintain law and order.
Certainly what you say is true from the military's point of view. I don't question that one bit. But in the end it isn't the military who decides these matters. (well maybe in the very end it is!)We've devolved into an academic discussion here but it's fun so to continue... Navy ships carry Coast Guard law enforcement detachments whenever they're conducting law enforcement operations anywhere in the world specifically because Posse Comitatus prohibits Navy and Marine personnel from engaging in law enforcement (the Coast Guard is statutorily tasked with law enforcement). This is a massive pain in the ass, we wouldn't do it if your definition of PC was the legally accepted interpretation. If 5,000 miles away from the nearest land (or 50 feet of Puerto Rico, in some cases since a lot of those patrols are conducted in that area) is considered subject to PC, then certainly Puerto Rico is! Again, believe me, I've sat through numerous classes on this, it was part of my profession (I was a military officer). Certainly you could form a tortured logic chain a la the Bush administration on torture that would allow for it, but it's certainly not the currently accepted view of the law and it would take more than the gradual decline into oblivion of PR to cause an about face on that interpretation. Not to mention, as I stated previously you'd be doing a huge disservice to the Marines to set them up for failure in a task that they're neither trained or equipped for.
Remember Eisenhower (who likely had similar briefing on Posse as you) sent Federal troops into Little Rock! And Arkansas is not even a territory, it's a State!
By the way I believe PC is a very very good idea with respect to internal, i.e., domestic affairs, but I think any argument that PC applies outside the United States is bound to fail. It is clear from my reading of the law that PC doesn't apply to territories of the United States that are not States, despite the military's chosen interpretation of the law. We may get a chance within the next few years to see if I am wrong.
Speaking of executive orders: (1987) At the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, a group of the Cuban refugees mounted an uprising. When federal agents could not control the riot, Reagan waived the Posse Comitatus Act and ordered a unit of Delta Force operators to subdue the uprising. (found on the net)
Here is another opinion found on the internet with regard to the 2011 Defense Authorization Act: The NDAA places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the President by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
the PC Act has been interpreted, except apparently by the military on a very selective basis, as not applying to territories.
The many precedents make it crystal clear to me that were the Puerto Rican Police and National Guard not able to put down a riot in Puerto Rico, they won't be, that US troops would be sent without so much as batting an eye.
I am not concerned about this, but I am gravely concerned about the ease with which PC has been brushed aside by the executive in he case of "Domestic" disturbances.
Last edited: