A Bad Way to Bring the Troops Home

Glenn Greenwald writes:

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."

...

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

Those who are fond of conspiracy theories no doubt wonder why this move is coming directly ahead of the 2008 election. However, this is yet another example of why making unsupported claims against the government is so unnecessary.

Using our military for domestic law enforcement purposes is just such an obviously terrible idea that there's no reason to assign bad faith to those who advocate doing so. It should be enough to argue that such a move is bad for the health of the American republic in the abstract. There's simply no reason to move in a direction that allows so much potential abuse of power.

Thus, everyone who is concerned about this should try to spread the word as much as they can. But we should do so in a way that does not leave us unnecessarily vulnerable to charges of being tinfoil hat wearers.