How Much Is Too Much?

Historically, the domestic operations of the U.S. military have been legally constrained. Starting with the "war on drugs," but accelerating with the "war on terrorism," there has been increasing incursion into domestic affairs. What started with the transfer of military weapons to police departments has grown to using the military to "surveil" (spy) within the U.S., and now with the Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, the military is taking a larger and larger domestic role - a role that could lead to legal military control of the United States.

The "strategy" clearly places the United States within it's theater of operation:

"To defeat 21st Century threats, we must think and act innovatively. Our adversaries consider US territory an integral part of a global theater of combat. We must therefore have a strategy that applies to the domestic context the key principles that are driving the transformation of US power projection and joint expeditionary warfare."

The "Strategy" lays out an array of domestic military activities. They include intelligence activities, deploying for "crisis management," information sharing with domestic police and intelligence agencies, and "joint operational capabilities." In short, military control of domestic space.

In the July 6, 2005 edition of the Washington Post, Bradley Graham's article "Military Expands Homeland Efforts" drew little attention in other media. In writing about the new "Strategy" document he states:

"The document does not ask for new legal authority to use military forces on U.S. soil, but it raises the likelihood that U.S. combat troops will take action in the event that civilian and National Guard forces are overwhelmed. At the same time, the document stresses that primary responsibility for domestic security continues to rest with civilian agencies."

The "constraints" on the military come from the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. It reads in part:

" SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment."

We have come a long way down a slippery slope with the military integration into domestic activities. The Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support takes us a lot further.

But there has been a questionable increase in the powers granted to the Secretary of Defense under the Bush regime. The ties go back to the events of September 11, 2001 and the authority to shoot down civilian aircraft. This authority resided solely with the President of the United States. On 9/11/01, the Vice President was reportedly given verbal authority to issue that command. Why it could not have been done by the President on Air Force 1 remains a mystery. However, that authority was also extended to the Secretary of Defense after the event.

Now, however, there is a plan from the Pentagon to give the Secretary of Defense the sole authority to shoot down civilian aircraft that violate Washington airspace (Airspace Authority Changes Weighed). Perhaps that is why it was unnecessary to interrupt Bush's bike ride on May 11, 2005 to tell him that a civilian craft was violating D.C. airspace.

There has been an ongoing erosion of the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act, and an increasing shift of authority to the Pentagon. The new powers set the stage for military control of both the functions and citizenry of the United States. The fact it seems to largely be slipping by unremarked is telling.

How much power is too much power for the Pentagon? We are way over that line.

Posted by rowan at July 24, 2005 7:26 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |