ARMED AND DANGEROUS

Bill Permits U.S. Troops To Patrol Border

Critics Fear Trend To Use Military For Civilian Law Enforcement

The House of Representatives has passed a measure that would allow
U.S. troops to be permanently deployed along the United States border
to assist the Border Patrol in the interdiction of drugs and illegal
immigrants.

The bill authorizes the secretary of defense to "assign members of the
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to assist" the Immigration and
Naturalization Service "in preventing the entry of terrorists and drug
traffickers into the United States."

The measure also would permit the military to assist the U.S. Customs
Service "in the inspection of cargo, vehicles and aircraft at points
of entry" into the U.S. "to prevent the entry of weapons of mass
destruction, components" thereof, "prohibited narcotics or drugs, or
other terrorist or drug trafficking items."

The bill, HR 628, passed 243-183 with 8 abstentions on May 18.
Sponsored by Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, the measure was originally
introduced in February 1999.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the Traficant amendment
would amend Chapter 18 of Title 10, United States Code. Title 10
governs the use of American military forces and personnel and already
permits the use of military personnel to operate equipment in support
of domestic law enforcement agencies, as well as the training of
civilian law enforcement personnel.

U.S. law currently prohibits, with exceptions, the "direct
participation" of U.S. military personnel in "search, seizure, arrest
or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by
such member is otherwise authorized by law."

While there remains support for the deployment of U.S. military forces
in a domestic border patrol capacity, not all officials who are
engaged in border enforcement welcome the addition of American
military personnel.

The National Border Patrol Council, the country's largest Border
Patrol union, is opposed to the Traficant provision because the
organization does not believe U.S. troops are adequately trained for
such a mission and because of past experiences with troops on the border.

While the Traficant provision would require that any military
personnel deployed in a border-patrol capacity first receive training,
the National Border Patrol Council, in a statement, said, "We all know
that the training will last a few hours at most, in sharp contrast to
the comprehensive 19-week training program that Border Patrol Agents
must complete."

Also, the Border Patrol union is worried that another incident like
the death of 18-year-old Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., will occur.
Hernandez was shot and killed by U.S. Marines near Redford, Texas, on
May 20, 1997. Marines claimed the teen shot at them; they were later
cleared, but the incident drew sufficient outcry to force the Pentagon
to drop deployment of military forces along the border for the time
being.

Supporters of the provision, however, point out that it specifically
prohibits U.S. troops from conducting "a search, seizure or other
similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest," in accordance
with Posse Comitatus laws. It also requires the attorney general or
secretary of the treasury to notify local officials and state
governors when forces are being deployed in support of Border Patrol
functions.

Controversy over the plan is as old as the bill itself. One year ago,
in an interview with WorldNetDaily, Gregory Nojeim, legislative
counsel for the Washington, D.C., chapter of the ACLU, said the sum
total of the new military roles in civilian law enforcement would
eventually destroy "what was left" of the Posse Comitatus Act.

"These provisions ... will blow a hole in Posse Comitatus large enough
to drive a thousand tanks onto our city streets," he said.

Nojeim said he is most concerned about language in the bill that gives
much more arbitrary judgement on the potential conditions in which the
military could be used in the hands of the secretary of defense, the
attorney general and the secretary of the treasury.

"They're trying to make it more of a routine thing to have the
military involved in enforcing American civil law," he added. "Imagine
having troops on your streets and in your back yard for an
undetermined amount of time for what could be an ambiguous reason."

Tim Lynch, a spokesman for the libertarian think tank, the CATO
Institute, said he believes it is a precursor to end the strict
limitations on civilian law-enforcement use of military assets and
personnel.

Last year, he said that while the provision had not yet been passed
into law, he feared it was "a certainty" it would be. The fact that
the measure passed the House last month bears out his concerns.

"Not too many people are talking about it, not many are objecting to it, and
it looks like it's just going to sail through," he said. "That concerns us."