Re: Ping: Jim (Napco PCI-Mini)

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>> A case could be made that [HR675 is] an end around posse comitatus in
>> that it does give DOD employees authority over folks they previously
>> did not have.  I don't quite buy that in that the Act is specifically
>> aimed at active duty military personnel.
>
> I don't think such a case would be valid because the employees in
> question are not military.  Posse Comitatus is not a general rule
> prohibiting federal personnel from having police powers.  It is very
> specifically a ban on the military becoming the police.  The ban exists
> to separate the military, which is not and of necessity cannot be a
> democratic institution, from policing the common citizens.
>
> There's more to it, of course.  Posse Comitatus also serves to preserve
> the separation (with it the balance) of powers which is a critical part
> of our system of government.  If the military rules the streets, the
> president can by fiat control the entire country.
>
> HR675 seeks only to better enable existing law enforcement personnel to
> do their jobs and to protect themselves and us.  This would be
> considered a good thing. Of course, an action being good for the country
> is no protection against nutty attacks from those who see Marxist
> conspiracy at every turn.  That's why God gave us Twitter though -- so
> folks would have someplace other than Usenet to complain.  :^)
>
>> I've already detailed the problems I have with it.  In fact, I would
>> almost go so far to say that I would rather have a newly stood up
>> national police force then give such authority to some of the clowns I
>> remember.
>
> ABIK, the law has no impact on civilian law enforcement personnel on
> military bases.  They already have power of arrest and they carry guns.
> I won't argue with you as to the caliber of most of those folks since I
> don't know anything about them and clearly you do.  The only one I know
> of though, is definitely a hero.  I hope she's not alone.
>

But as it stands they only have that authority on post.  IIRC, they
couldn't even "arrest" civlians - they could 'detain' them for the local
PD, but not arrest them as they did with military members.

And when off duty - their guns were in the armory.

We always assumed that the limited scope of their authority was why the
hiring standards were so much looser than with regular pd's.

Again - not that there weren't or aren't decent professionals on the
forces, just that the it always seemed to me that the "ten percent" that
broke from the norm were the "good" ones, rather than the bad ones.


>> Then again - I do hope it's different now.
>
> Most things do change and not always for the worse.
>