51st State.

[Sig]

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!)

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!

Well at least we got past the domestic territory thing. It isn't the "military's point of view"; as you pointed out the military is under civilian control and all the restrictions and training on those restrictions comes from the civil law that governs the military's actions. We didn't do all that noise with the Coast Guard detachments because the Navy and Coast Guard got together and decided it was a great idea!
Yes, once in our history a President did what would probably be determined illegal if it had been taken to the supreme court in an extraordinary circumstance. One could do so again, but unlikely that PR rises to the level of extraordinary circumstance for a President to risk falling on their sword over, especially when Marines are such an inappropriate choice of tool to use in that circumstance.

 

[piezoe]

We didn't do all that noise with the Coast Guard detachments because the Navy and Coast Guard got together and decided it was a great idea!

I would just add this. You did it because of the Military's Brass interpretation of the law. And as we both know that is not the definitive interpretation. (There is no question however that the original PC act leaves out the Coast Guard, and the Air Force and Marines too. But later interpretation, probably never tested in court, extended application of the Act to the Air Force which was originally part of the Army.

 

[Sig]

I would just add this. You did it because of the Military's Brass interpretation of the law.

No, this is actually a crucial thing. The military brass doesn't decide how to interpret something like PC. Most decidedly, definitely not! The military is under civilian control, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. No-one in uniform makes interpretations on items like that. No flag officer or group of flags would be able to unilaterally decide to stop using Coast Guard personnel and start using Navy personnel for law enforcement because they decide to reinterpret PC!
I think that's sadly a common misperception among Americans, again probably from movies where the General sternly orders in the troops, but the civilian control of the military is a bedrock doctrine both inside the military and outside. That kind of thing would fall squarely on the Secretary of Defense and in this case Homeland Security, and they wouldn't make a change on something like this without complete concurrence of POTUS. They would have implemented and continued to implement law enforcement in this manner through many Presidents of different parties because it is in fact the accepted definition of the law. Obviously any law can be reinterpreted if there is enough pressure to do so, again look at Bush and torture, but there is literally no-one inside government or the military who share your interpretation of PC today, and again little reason to change the current widely accepted definition.

 

[piezoe]

No, this is actually a crucial thing. The military brass doesn't decide how to interpret something like PC. Most decidedly, definitely not! The military is under civilian control, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. No-one in uniform makes interpretations on items like that. No flag officer or group of flags would be able to unilaterally decide to stop using Coast Guard personnel and start using Navy personnel for law enforcement because they decide to reinterpret PC!

Well that's a relief! Who does it then, The Sec. of Defense? I must have been watching too many movies!

 

[piezoe]

Sig, please see my post #30 above. I added a few examples that I found on the Net. They surprised me. Apparently, much to our chagrin, the PC act isn't worth more than the paper it is written on even when it comes to domestic disturbances, let alone those in our territories.

 

[vanzandt]

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!)

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.

Forget about Puerto Rico. Notice Trump's Tweet last week about Chicago? "If the Mayor can't do it, the Federal Govt will".

Martial law in the Windy City. Its gonna happen.

 

[W.J. Feathermaker III]

Forget about Puerto Rico. Notice Trump's Tweet last week about Chicago? "If the Mayor can't do it, the Federal Govt will".

Martial law in the Windy City. Its gonna happen.

For whatever reason (one can imagine why), the discussion about gun violence in Chicago rarely, if ever, mentions how it's largely "gang related". There is a tendency by the media to act as though much of it is "random", when it really isn't.