Pubdate: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 Source: Daily Iowan, The (IA Edu) Section: Viewpoints, Page 7A Copyright: 2001 The Daily Iowan Contact: http://www.dailyiowan.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/937 Author: James Eaves-Johnson CALL OFF THE SOLDIER-POLICE With the National Guard in our airports and at various biological storage facilities, it is not surprising that some of our national leaders are talking about expanding the role of the military in federal law enforcement. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., has proposed expanding federal powers under the Posse Comitatus Act, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has offered support. As usual, the left has also come out for intrusive government. Former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Col., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have both expressed a need for increased use of the military in domestic law enforcement. American and English history informs us on why these expansions are a bad idea. As early as the 13th century, England divided its forces into domestic and foreign forces. The domestic forces were constrained by the common law and thus liable for any crimes they might have committed. That is why Americans were disgusted by the civil immunity that the king granted his soldiers prior to the Revolutionary War. The abuses by the British military brought about many safeguards in the Constitution to prevent standing armies and subject military power to civil authority. Even Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong central government, said the absence of the federal government in law enforcement would protect the states from being overwhelmed by federal tyranny. Of course, even with those protections, America has been too willing to use the military for law-enforcement purposes. After the Civil War, military troops were used broadly for law enforcement in the South. Federal abuses of power in the South gave rise to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbade the use of the military to execute the laws of the United States. Even still, it did not stop the federal government from using troops to end a miners' strike in 1899. It did not prevent the military from detaining black "Bolshevik agitators" during World War I. It did not stop President Truman from unconstitutionally seizing steel mills with military power. More recently, the National Guard was used to quell peaceful protests during the Vietnam War. Most notably, four students were murdered by a National Guard unit during protests at Kent State in 1970. In the 1980s and '90s, a variety of exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act were created to allow militarization of drug enforcement and border patrols. In 1997, a Marine unit murdered Esequiel Hernendez, who was herding his family's goats on private property near the Mexican border. While the killers were not punished, the government settled a resulting lawsuit for $1.9 million. Of course, on the other side, police forces have been militarizing. SWAT teams intended for extreme situations are increasingly being used for ordinary searches and seizures. Police departments have received 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers from the military. These "police" serve no-knock warrants, kicking down doors, pointing automatic weapons in people's (and often children's) faces, forcing them to the ground, spouting vulgar language, and wearing the gear of a military special-operations team. These are not law-enforcement teams committed to upholding constitutional government through proper investigation and apprehension. They are confrontation squads of jack-booted thugs who are more efficient at violating rights than protecting rights. The purpose here, however, is not to suggest that our police should be unarmed. The fact that UI Public Safety officers are defenseless against a serious criminal is appalling. Are they really supposed to protect us with Mace or a Taser against armed criminals? Even so, there is no reason that Public Safety, or any police force, should have fully automatic high-powered rifles, grenade launchers, and armored personnel carriers. They certainly shouldn't start acting like soldiers committed to destroying the enemy. The proper way for law enforcement to engage the public is with an eye to constitutional safeguards. Police learn to protect Miranda rights, to preserve life (even the criminal's), and to obey limits of constitutional police power. Military forces are trained to kill and maim with maximum force. Recent events tempt tilting the balance of constitutional government in the interest of security. However, security can never be obtained if we fear the tyranny of those who are charged with the enforcement of our laws. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth