Something Fishy with Kerry's being a "Hero"

"R. David Steele" wrote in message

| The military has always been the police.
|
|No, only not really. Military forces were only used for civilian law
|enforcement when the sheriff, marshall, etc. was faced with the
equivalent
|of an insurrection. The first historical incident of this kind in the
U.S.
|is the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC.

The title of sheriff was used for special knights in the King's
service.

In English Law he is sometimes called the shire-reeve. He is the principal
officer in the county. In Scotish Law he was a judicial as well as
ministerial officer.

American pratice follows the English since at least the founding of the
Republic.

| That was one of the
| missions of the militia.
|
|The militia was, and still can be, used to aid constitutional law
|enforcement officers. Its use was rare.
|
|Washington called out State Militias and lead them in the field to
surpress
|the Whiskey Rebellion. He is the only U.S. president to ever lead an
army
|in the field while in office.

The militia was used at local level as the posse and the fire
brigade.

I'm sure that it sometimes was used as a fire brigade and to enforce local
law.. But that does not mean it was the primimary law enforcement
mechanism.

The posse commitatus was a totally different enterprise.

| Until the late 1800s, the military was
| the primary federal police.
|
|No, the primary "federal police" authority be the U.S. Marshall. That
|person could have one or more deputies. Territories could also for
counties
|and elect county sheriffs. Towns had marshalls. The Army was there
|primarily to control hostile aboriginals (the word "indian" now being
|non-PC).
|
|During the Reconstuction period in the former Confederacy the Army had a
|MUCH more active police role, but that was a very short period and few
Army
|officers wanted that duty.

The US Marshall, I believe, did not come into existence until the
late 1800s.

The U.S. Marshall service dates to 1789. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/usmshist.html

Until then the military did the federal function.

No, it did not.

Even today the FBI, Marshals and others base their authority on
that of an Army officer.

Where did you ever get this? The authority of the FBI is derived from the
Attorney General. See above for Marshall's authority.

| Due to abuses, that is why the Army
| was restricted by the PCA (congress can give permission for the
| Army to engage in police work, the Navy is not restricted).
|
|You are correct that percieve Army excesses were the genesis of the PCA.
|The Navy is not subject to the PCA, but is subject to a SECNAVINST from
|about 1919 that imposes the same limitations.

However we have used the Marines to do law enforcement. It was
just a few years ago that the Marines were sent into the South
Central LA to stop rioting.

Back in '65, IIRC, the 82nd Airborne was used during the Detroit Riots. In
'71 (IIRC) elements of of the 101st Airborne were deployed to NAS Quonset
Point, RI to be held in standby in the event of civil disturbances due to a
big-time civil rights trial in Hartford, CT.

IOW military forces CAN be used in certain circumstances. Read the Posse
Commitatus Act for further information.

|As a general rule the police have, as their primary fuction, the
|apprehension of criminals. They do not have a duty to protect any given
|citizen. But their duty is APPREHENSION of criminals. They may use
force,
|including deadly force, when required by circumstance.
|
|The soldier has no inherant duty to apprehend anyone. Within his rules
of
|engagement he may use whatever tactics, including deadly force, that he
sees
|as necessary to the accomplishment of his mission.
|
|Or, put another way, the police officer has a general duty to announce
|himself and give an accused time to surrender; a soldier can just bang
away.

Not true. Otherwise the military would just kill all civilians.

Bull****. Does the phrase Law of War have any meaning for you?

Under the rules we operate under, there must be reasonable
threat. If an enemy surrenders, we can not just execute them.

Ayup. Law of War thing.

And the police can use deadly force if they are resisted.

I think I said that.

Remember, the military's mission is not to kill everyone and
anyone. It is to force the other side to accept the will of our
politicians.

I think I said this, too, in my reference to "rules of engagement."

Likewise the police are there to force the American
people to accept the will of the politicians (ie laws).

The police exist to apprehend criminals. In our republican system laws come
from folks elected to office. The police enforce those laws.

Nor are service members allowed to kill fellow service members.

Well, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

Bill,

IOW military forces CAN be used in certain circumstances. Read the Posse
Commitatus Act for further information.

Good advice, except that David will likely misinterpret it - as he seems to
misinterpret much in this NG.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"R. David Steele" wrote in message
[rest snipped]