Consider what they are up against and they seem armed appropriately no?

The relevant legislation is as follows:
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Correct me if I am wrong, but before congress can authorize anyone to use federal troops to place under civilian authority then they have to make amendments to the constitution. This will of course take an act of congress. Then it will take an act of congress to then authorize the use of federal troops. By then the National Guard would have been called in under state jurisdiction (thus negating the need for federalized troops).

I agree with PJ24. This would leave too much of a door for things to come crumbling down around us.

You are talking using federal troops for civilian law enforcement which is what the constitution expressly forbids under the posse comitatus act.

I don't think a draft is a good way.
For example S Korea.
S Korea is the few country where conscription is being still carried out.
But there is an important problem.
The young people are eager not to like being drafted into the army and to emigrate.
If the United States carries out conscription, young people would escape to Canada.
And an amateur soldier isn't useful for high-tech war.
Conscription is perfect out-of-dateness.
Question
What is armed society?
Is citizen society with guns?
Isn't that dangerous?
Is it true that a child can't walk way alone in the United States?
The patriotism is important for certain.
But patriotism sometimes produces an absurd situation.
A councilor says so in Russia.
" If a Russian lady gets married to a foreigner, her Russian nationality should be stripped off. "
A reason; To stop washing away to a foreign country of an excellent Russian lady.

Well, it was a thought. I just think that the USA needs to really get itself back into a true war footing.

The war on terror will not end soon and our enemies are going to make another strike. I do see at some point in time terrorist Murder Bombers (They're not sucide bombers) hiiting targets within CONUS.

I am sure there will be a time when they will try, and in some cases succeed, with a CONUS bombing. I do not see where federal troops would help in that case.

I am not sure if you know what a sleeper agent is, but I am sure there are many in the US. All they need to do is activate and things will go downhill from there.

One person with homemade equipment can do alot of damage. Unfortunately the insurgents in Iraq have shown they are not only intelligent but resourceful as well. I would think this would apply doubly so to any operatives the terrorists have managed to plant in the US.

Most attacks in the US will be preventable via the same tactics used in every day LE operations, those that aren't, will be like most LE operations, reactionary (or after the fact). Setting up security, assisting in rescue and recovery, etc.

Allowing LE to become just another branch of the military will not prevent terror attacks CONUS. Neither will trying to force the military to act as civilian cops.

Attacks here will have to be quick and sporadic. There won't be planned ambushes waiting at the local 7-11 for Officer Snuffy and his friends when they hop in mid-shift to grab a cup of Joe.

If anything, the burden of Homeland Defense lies on the shoulders of the intelligence and investigative areas of LE. Yes, we need to be able to act on intel, but not to any level that would require cops to be armed with MK19s and uparmored HMMWVs. Even if we went that route, it wouldn't stop bombers.

We don't have to become a military state to protect ourselves.

Best way to protect our selves is to secure our borders.But this seems to be ignored.

I think we are drifting from the original topic; reorganizing the U.S. military in order to help support the police and law enforcement agencies in their roles as government.

This is a sound idea, but the institution of such measure is contrary to the very cores that the constitution was written upon. The checks and balances built into the constitution makes sure that no one branch of government gains more power than the other. Essentially, each branch is held accountable to another. This idea is carried over into the role of the military. Yes, the U.S. Army would do an outstanding job bringing down threats to the populous. Perhaps even too good. One could argue that perhaps the Army would be more inclined to use more force than what is used by police officers. I am going to school for law enforcement, and we have again and again been tought that under the laws derived from the meaning of the framers of the constitution, the amount of force used on a suspect should only equal the amount necessary, any measure above that is considered punitive. Not that punishment is wrong, but it is the role of the judicial branch to decide punishment.

This aside, the military in our cities give me the willies. NOt because the military is inherently evil, far from it. But instead, the opportunity for a high-ranking military official to begin a 'campaign' against any other branch of government would be largly increased. I dont mean a civil war, instead there are other ways this could happen. In the military, orders are given, and orders are followed. If a commanding General gives the order for a senate member to be arrested, there would be little questioning him from within his command. This would give the opportunity for those with power to effectivly silence those who oppose them. BAD IDEA.

The Posse Comitatus law was written for a reason; protect the American people from a possible takeover by the military. Again, not because the military is 'bad', simply because absolute power corrupts absolutly. No one can be given the keys to the nation and not be expected to use them.

It may seem superficial, but these checks are put here for a reason.

I have had training (albeit very slight) in how to manage EPW (enemy prisoners of war). I have also seen military police take down a Marine that was intoxicated and only a little belligerent. It is not a pretty sight to watch. What you see on TV is nothing compared to the way these guys get handled. In almost every case a weapon was drawn, locked and cocked and ready to fire. If the person tried to resist or escape the result is a round fired to kill, not injure.

One of the sayings in the military is peace through superior firepower. If someone shoots at you, shoot back with more intensity, more volume, and with the intent to kill, not subdue.

Put that mindset in the streets of L.A. or S.F. or any other big city and you will have some pretty spectacular firefights. Trust me, the military is fine where it is at and with what it is doing. Let the civilian LEOs do their job.

I see where you're coming from, and why some of it might make sense, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Your first point about putting DoD assets under local law enforcement under a time of war makes me shudder. To put a Federal force that is supposed to be used only when several states are involved (unless by Presidential order or an act of Congress) under a local (city/county) authority? Not only does that smash several dozen rules and the Constitution, it would never work.

The military must not touch law enforcement, although I agree it can be used under dire circumstances such as a major gang war (but even then, it'd be the National Guard, not the active duty military). The military is trained to shoot to kill; law enforcement fires only as a last resort. The military is simply not suited to operating in a civillian environment like this.

"The US Coast Guard takes law enforcement duties everyday."
It is their duty to defend, patrol, and safeguard our maritime boarders. Their website mission statement says, "Protect America's maritime borders from all intrusions by: (a) halting the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, and contraband into the United States through maritime routes...". They are a unique blend of law enforcement with paramilitary characteristics and are NOT typical of the US armed forces.

"the US Navy is tasked with Drug Enforcement"
That is not fully true. If you took that from my post on the other thread, you misread me; Coast Guard officers may be present on Naval ships in case they ever run into druggies or pirates on the high seas, not specifically in defense of home waters. It is not the US Navy's mission to intercept contraband, although it may sometimes happen and the Navy sometimes is called upon to assist the Coast Guard.

"Law Enforcement isn’t like what it was ten years ago."
Actually, yes it is. The infamous North Hollywood bank shootout that would seemingly prove your point about well armed criminals happened on February 28, 1997. The first SWAT team was founded in the 1960's, and the first real deployment of the famous LAPD SWAT team was in 1969 against a terrorist organization called the Black Panthers. High powered crime such as what you are describing is nothing new, and law enforcement is able to cope with it, although I do believe they will need more support and funding.

Most policemen today are not paramilitary specialists like you describe, they are still the "men in black" who deal with speeding motorists and petty thieves. Very dangerous situations are still very common, but it is not to the extent that you say.


"I think that it needs to be reorganized to the point that the cadet programs like US Civil Air Patrol and JROTC should be further militarized. During WWII, CAP fought and sank German U-Boats. Why can’t the civil air patrol be armed now? Cadets around the age of 16-18 should be armed and do tasks such as base security. "

I can't speak for CAP, but I can for JROTC. I don't know if you're in JROTC (doesn't sound like it), but the mission of JROTC is nothing like what you are advocating. According to the Navy JROTC website, their mission is
"to instill in students in United States secondary
educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the United States,
personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment."
Nowhere does mention anything abou military service, voluntary or otherwise. JROTC is not a fully military training program as some people see it, but more of a citizenship building program, to instill discipline, honor, courage, and commitment. The fact that participants get exposed to military life and can decide if they want to join after they graduate is a pleasant side effect.

We're in JROTC as a enjoyable elective class. We're just high school students. Even though I fully support the military and would like to join one day, right now it's more important for me to study for my AP's and SAT's. JROTC is a high school level elective program, not a paramilitary training force, and it should never be one.


"Once again, Israel is my example..."
You can not always compare Israel to the United States like that. We are in completely different political situations. The US has two friendly countries on our north and south borders, and two oceans on our east and west. Israel is alone in the entire Middle East, surrounded by hostile nations that would want no better than to see it liquidated and wiped off the map. Israel faces constant terrorism from extremist Muslim groups. It is no surpise then, that they have a much more aggressive and better armed law enforcement.

We do not have a need to that extent, and so we can not justify stepping up to that level.

"I think conscription is a good idea."
I think it isn't. Many people are already in opposition to a draft, how would it look like if we started a forced conscription? We just aren't in the situation to justify such an action.

Look at the countries that do have a conscription. Israel (I think it does) as I said before, is surrounded by hostiles. South Korea is bordered by a violent, aggressive Communist nation which wants to reunite them by force. Their war isn't over, border skirmishes still happen.

"No other nation to my knowledge deploys it's armed forces the way the USA does. I don't hear much about Germany having bases in Asia. Or Brazil haing a airbase in England. The USA is the only one with bases all around the world in foriegn countries. Most other nations have their military forces station within their borders. America is the opposite."

That's because we have interests all around the world which we must defend. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the United States is the only remaining superpower, militarily, economically, socially, and politically. We can not afford to sit on our hands and wait for the enemy to come to us. We must maintain a presence all around the world to prevent threats from ever happening; it's called projection of power. As I said before, we are relatively very safe because of our geographical situation. By being overseas, we are defending our homeland.


"During WWII, the USA was truly on a war footing. It was killed or be killed in terms of how society looked at it and I think that society needs to look at the current situation like that too."

During the Second World War, we were mobilized in a state of total war against the Axis powers. We aren't even nearly in any state like that today, and we really don't need to be.


About that picture of the Columbian police, if you stop and think about it, they really need something like that. Columbia has been seriously screwed over by the drug trade, with almost all of the money in the hands of the drug lords, leaving the rest of the country poor peasansts. The government and military are massively corrupt and totally ineffective against the drug lords.



I agree, an open society is not 100% secure, but a society surrounded by men armed to the teeth can never be 100% free. We can not tilt to heavily in either direction, but we must find the balance, which isn't that far from where we are today.