Ridge and Democratic Senators Call for Study of Expanded Military Powers for Domestic Law Enforcement By Scott Lindlaw Associated Press Writer Published: Jul 21, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland security chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism may force government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, now largely prohibited by federal law. President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the Reconstruction-era law, known as the "Posse Comitatus Act."

Ridge said Sunday that it "goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest," and called the prospect "very unlikely."

But he said the government is wise to examine the law.

"We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event," Ridge said on "Fox News Sunday." "And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus."

Two influential Democratic senators agreed with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed, but expressed no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman Senate Armed Services Committee, said posse comitatus "has served us well for a long time."

"It's kept the military out of law enforcement, out of arresting people except in the most unusual emergency situations like a riot or after some kind of a disaster where they have to protect against looting," Levin, D-Mich., said on CNN's "Late Edition."

However, he said: "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful in a very supportive and assisting role even than they have been up to now - providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting people."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he favors expanding the military's role in responding to major catastrophes such as an attack by a weapon of mass destruction.

The law "has to be amended, but we're not talking about general police power," Biden, D-Del., said on "Fox News Sunday."

Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, who heads the new military command charged with defending American territory, told The New York Times he favors changing the law to grant greater domestic powers to the military to protect against terror attacks. He offered no specific changes he favored.

Congress is racing to approve legislation by the end of its session this fall that would make Bush's proposed Department of Homeland Security a reality.

In the Senate, a version of the measure by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., tracks closely with Bush's plan. It also would augment the agency's ability to gather and analyze intelligence from the FBI, CIA and others.

That bill is to be considered by the Senate committee Wednesday.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey said on NBC's "Meet the Press" there was a strong possibility Congress will resolve its differences and send Bush a bill enacting the sweeping government reorganization by Sept. 11.

Some lawmakers have expressed concern about rushing decisions on far-reaching changes in the bureaucracy, but Armey said: "It's time to move forward with this. The president's got a good plan."

Bush planned to give a speech Monday about his proposed new department and view demonstrations of high-technology devices for combatting terrorism that are being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.

AP-ES-07-21-02 1624EDT

From: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKWLTDX3D.html

-- Zeed (zeed14@hotmail.com), July 22, 2002

Answers

I was told by my Republican friends, that if I voted for Al Gore, an idiot would end up in the white house.Well I voted for Al gore, I guess they were right.

-- SM Steve (Unreal@home.com), July 22, 2002.

And I was told by my democrat friends that if I voted for Nader, an idiot would end up in the white house. I guess THEY were right, as well!

-- joj (jump@off.c), July 23, 2002.

JOJ, I stole that joke from CNN .I know this will make me look unresponsible in many peoples eyes, but I've never voted in my life.I don't thik I ever will. And no I'm not a fellon.I have parents who were involed with politics.It was educational. I just don't think the world should be run by people who have heavy alcohol and hard drug habits.Not my parents,the politicians. Politicians ,from personel knowlege are the heaviest party-hardy people on the planet.Cocaine seems to be their drug of choice . A lot of people think george is dumb.Actually , the mans brain if fried.I think they should use him on a drug prevention TV commercial aimed at grade school kids. Since I didn't get a chance to respond to your post on another thread about about your Nuclear plant protesting, I'll say it here.You probably know , but incase, I'll add. In the gulf war 320 tons of spent Uranium were used as weapons that were used to take down tanks.10 tons were used in Bosnia. Army personel love the stuff. They say it cuts thru the tanks like a hot knife through butter.But after the war they felt kind of quessy from the stuff .It's probably just a short term side affect cause after the bone cancer sets in, they won't be around to suffer the side affects much longer. And I thought gulf war syndrom was permenant. I use to protest. My last one was November 11, 1971 Washingting DC.outside the Whitehouse. It started out like Woodstock with Joan Baez stumming her guitar. It ended like a mash pit at a Heavey Metal concert,only it was riot police mashing in full protective gear smashing heads to a bloody pulp with clubs like primative barbarians of people who were just peacefully assembled in a very large number to show their disaproval of a war.No protester provoked the Police. I was young,but remember that cold day, I remember running to keep from being beaten with a club, even remember what I ate for lunch that day and this impression of goverment oppression has never gone away.When I hear people saying " Americans are losing their Rights " I aways questain to myself, when did we get rights.

-- SM Steve (Unreal@home.com), July 23, 2002.

Whats wrong with drugs??

Thats part of freedom...

-- Zeed (zeed14@hotmail.com), July 25, 2002.

Nothing wrong with drugs. Wait , hold it a minute, let me get this needle out of my arm . Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's much better .As I was saying, from my witnessing of peers from the past, who could barely run their own life .I'd rather not have some intoxicated idiot making decisions that will affect my life, but being that it's a democracy or is it a mockery ? the view points of the other 250 million people in this country may differ. Anyway being comfortably numb might make me not able to notice the arsenic, mercury ,sulfites and other crap I've been forced to breath from the coal plant near by, or the slow consistent burning of the retnas in my eyes,from a Nuclear weapons plant that has been leaking stodium 90 and other shit I know not the name of since the 1960's and affects living tissue and considered dangerous to life forms within a 120 mile radius .And the scary part is when you mention it to local folks, they think it's cool to go visit the out side grounds of the Nuclear plant , not to protest , to see the frogs with 6 legs . I'd rather stay sober so I can make a clear decision as to pick my next place to live when I leave here ,more carefully. No, I wasn't stoned when I picked this place to live ,I'M slow. Getting stoned also messes with (REM) rapid eye movement sleep, the part of sleep where the mind actually rest and recharges. Not getting rest can make a person easily agitated, reckless, careless.Is that safe for a leader of a country that has Nuclear weapons at his command ?, shit no .. It also disrupts serotonin a neurotranamitter. Now we're talking vital brain functions here. Serotonin imbalance is the same stuff that people with mental illness battle with and take stuff like Prozac and Zyprexa . In a sense, getting stoned is self induced insanity. Now it could be said that insanity rest on the border of being a genius. But if it comes to someone who can decide if a country should go to war and makes decisions that affect a city, a country, or a worlds furture,I'd think being sober would be the way to go . If I had time I'd go into the story of some guys I met at a social gathering, in South Florida, who claimed they ate LSD almost every day when they were in the gulf war ,Dessert Storm .Ever hear of the term , Friendly Fire . Getting stoned should be peoples personal choice , without penalties that get them locked in cages or their valuable stashes confiscated .. But people who get stoned should have regard for us sober ones, who don't want to become victims of recklessness . I guess I'd never be invited to one of your parties,it's a bad habit ,I aways bring everyone down.

-- SM Steve (Unreal@home.com), July 25, 2002.

Once upon a time, the military was a military. It was used to kick butt and take over/defeat powers/countries/people that threatened this country. Since Korea to the present it has been a "police agency", to enforce "law". (?) i guess since you can't use the military as it was intended to be used, law enforcement is the next best thing. I figured, wrongly it seems, that if you want to use the military in it's proper manner, you call congress and congress declares war; you send the military to go kick butt and then you will have an end of the problem/situation at hand. (Thought that the constitution was how this country was to be governed?) (and the constitution says that only congress can declare war etc.) I guess I missed the new constitution that is in use these days, does any of you have a copy of it and will you post it so as I can read it. Thanks!

-- disgruntled (disgruntled@flabbergasted.com), July 26, 2002.

My views of Military and war differ. I see it , since the begining of man as being rooted in the sexual nature of man. Young men are always the first to be chosen by a nation or tribe to fight battles. They are not chosen because of their smarts or experience. It certainly not their strenght that they are chosen for, most mens strenght peaks at the age of around 30.And at this age they are smarted or more experienced may be the better fitted word. The advantage to using young men is they are loaded with Testosterone, the male hormone that gives men their sexual drive.Biologically motivated, and not to be confuse with logically motivated, the male human sex drive is actually a weapon in itself. Give a young male an automatic weapon spin him in a circle , point the direction of the enemy and tell him to run in and fire. He won't even questain, "why are we killing for". When young military men go over seas,one of the favorite past times they look foward to on their time off from duty is visiting prostitutes.In the old days, after a village was concord, the young males were allowed to rape the women of the people they concord.Some things might have changed in war in the last 30 thousand years. Money and territory might now be the motives to war instead of the sexual conquest of the neighboring tribes women. But in a way having wealth that can be achieved through wars is also a sexual motive. Any man knows, young or old that (Most ) women find them more attractive when they have an expensive automobile, a comfrotable home, and money to spend loosely.Women too are driven by biological needs, a weathly man can insure her offspring are well feed, clothed and sheltered.And the phrase ," a women can't resist a man in uniform" my not be politically correct these days,but the unifom kind of represents a young horney male.And this attracks a young horney female. It's all the violent nature of survival of the fittest,passing on genes and the reproduction rituals of a biological speices, Human. Maybe this is just coincidence, but our Nuclear bombs, which show a countries macho dominace, are launched on rockets, which are shaped like a giant penis.

-- SM Steve (Unreal@home.com), July 26, 2002.

SM steve, it sounds like you have some issues to deal with. It also seems like you missed the point of what I thought that I stated clearly. Perhaps I did not. One wonders whether or not people can read what is written and not look for "between the line stuff" that is merely empty space. The whole point is the proer use of the military which is war and not "police actions" and that war is to be declared by an act of congress against an enemy and not an abstract thought like 'terror"

-- disgruntled (disgruntled@flabbergasted.com), July 30, 2002.