MORE MILITARY POLICE POWERS?

Defense Bill Seeks To End Prior Restrictions

Under the auspices of combating illegal drugs, guarding borders and
preventing terrorism, new provisions in the House and Senate Defense
Appropriations Bills seek to increase the use of the U.S. military in
domestic law enforcement.

According to sources, the bill would end the requirement for local law
agencies to reimburse the federal government for any local use of military
equipment, as well as enable the Department of Defense to deploy military
troops in cases of anticipated or actual terrorist attacks.

Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute said both houses of Congress
contained provisions and amendments that would, if passed, "set precedents
for years to come."

For example, one provision would remove the requirement for local law
enforcement agencies to reimburse the DOD for use of military resources, at
the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.

"That is currently the main practical check on the use of military
equipment by local police," Kopel told WorldNetDaily. He added that he is
worried about an overall growth in the federal government's "tendency to
militarize local police officers."

Kopel said the precedent for government's current fixation on more dramatic
use of the military as law enforcement personnel has its roots in Waco,
Texas. There, in 1993, some 83 members of a religious group known as the
Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, died when a fire engulfed
their community, allegedly because armored military vehicles ignited
kerosene lanterns when making a forced entry.

Since then, Kopel said, the federal government has been "eroding the
protections contained in the Posse Comitatus Act" -- a law that prevents
most uses of the military in civilian law enforcement application. In the
past, he added, most of the amendments to the original law had been based
on bogus drug issues.

Tim Lynch, a spokesman for The CATO Institute, confirmed the provision, and
told WorldNetDaily he believes it is a precursor to end the strict
limitations on civilian law enforcement use of military assets
and personnel. He added that the measure had not yet
passed into law, but said he fears "it is a certainty."

"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."

Lynch said it was "odd" that this measure was added to a defense
appropriations bill that would include "the last six months of this year."

"Our fear is that, OK, when next year comes along, will this protection go
away altogether," he said. "We definitely don't want to see that."

On another front, Kopel told WorldNetDaily the House of Representatives
voted in June to allow the military to "directly take over border patrol
duties."

The measure, which was originally introduced as H.R. 628 by Ohio Democrat
James Traficant in February, is now being considered as part of the total
Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2000. Mr. Traficant's office did not
return phone calls to WorldNetDaily.

However, a spokesman for Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., Chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, confirmed Mr. Traficant's legislation was passed
by the House and is currently being considered in a joint House-Senate
conference committee.

"The (Traficant) amendment passed by a margin of 242-181," the spokesman said.

Specifically, the Traficant amendment would amend Title 10, United States
Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the Armed
Forces, "under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, to
assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States
Customs Service in the performance of border protection functions."

If passed the measure would allow military personnel to assist the Border
Patrol in curbing illegal immigration by "preventing entry into the U.S."
The bill also gives the military the authority to prevent entry of "drug
traffickers and terrorists," and would allow military inspections of
"cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the U.S."

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 told WorldNetDaily.

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.

For example, Section 1067 of S. 1059, the Senate version of the
appropriations bill, changes current law by allowing the Secretary of
Defense to request troops to respond to the mere threat of a terrorist
incident, rather than having to wait for an actual attack.

"And what constitutes a threat? Anything the Department of Defense says is
a threat," he said.

Furthermore, Nojeim said, "the nature, the kind, of assistance has changed
too."

"If this passes, military assistance may be given for such period as the
Secretary of Defense determines necessary to prepare for and prevent an
attack," he said, "rather than just responding to assist civilian
authorities during or after an attack."

Nojeim acknowledged that prudence may dictate that the federal government
prepare U.S. forces to meet such threats but he added that the new emphasis
appears to be on deploying the military before trouble starts, "in
something other than a crisis situation."

"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."

Nojeim also noted there were planned changes in the way military personnel
performed their duties when in the service of civilian authorities.

"Before, personnel could not participate in any direct manner," he said.
"But the new provision makes it sound as if the only thing the military
would be used for would be to shoot. They're setting it up where troops can
shoot, but they can't arrest." He noted that even former Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger, when asked to assess the impact of such legislation a
few years ago, commented about the irony of the bill's stated intentions
and the actual meaning of the language contained in it.

"Weinberger asked congressional sponsors if they really wanted to establish
that condition," Nojeim said.