CALL OFF THE SOLDIER-POLICE

With the National Guard in our airports and at various biological storage
facilities, it is not surprising that some of our national leaders are
talking about expanding the role of the military in federal law
enforcement. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., has proposed expanding federal powers
under the Posse Comitatus Act, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
has offered support.

As usual, the left has also come out for intrusive government. Former Sen.
Gary Hart, D-Col., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have both expressed
a need for increased use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

American and English history informs us on why these expansions are a bad
idea. As early as the 13th century, England divided its forces into
domestic and foreign forces.

The domestic forces were constrained by the common law and thus liable for
any crimes they might have committed.

That is why Americans were disgusted by the civil immunity that the king
granted his soldiers prior to the Revolutionary War. The abuses by the
British military brought about many safeguards in the Constitution to
prevent standing armies and subject military power to civil authority.

Even Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong central government, said
the absence of the federal government in law enforcement would protect the
states from being overwhelmed by federal tyranny.

Of course, even with those protections, America has been too willing to use
the military for law-enforcement purposes.

After the Civil War, military troops were used broadly for law enforcement
in the South. Federal abuses of power in the South gave rise to the Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbade the use of the military to execute the
laws of the United States. Even still, it did not stop the federal
government from using troops to end a miners' strike in 1899. It did not
prevent the military from detaining black "Bolshevik agitators" during
World War I. It did not stop President Truman from unconstitutionally
seizing steel mills with military power.

More recently, the National Guard was used to quell peaceful protests
during the Vietnam War. Most notably, four students were murdered by a
National Guard unit during protests at Kent State in 1970.

In the 1980s and '90s, a variety of exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act
were created to allow militarization of drug enforcement and border
patrols. In 1997, a Marine unit murdered Esequiel Hernendez, who was
herding his family's goats on private property near the Mexican border.
While the killers were not punished, the government settled a resulting
lawsuit for $1.9 million.

Of course, on the other side, police forces have been militarizing. SWAT
teams intended for extreme situations are increasingly being used for
ordinary searches and seizures.

Police departments have received 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored
personnel carriers from the military.

These "police" serve no-knock warrants, kicking down doors, pointing
automatic weapons in people's (and often children's) faces, forcing them to
the ground, spouting vulgar language, and wearing the gear of a military
special-operations team. These are not law-enforcement teams committed to
upholding constitutional government through proper investigation and
apprehension. They are confrontation squads of jack-booted thugs who are
more efficient at violating rights than protecting rights.

The purpose here, however, is not to suggest that our police should be
unarmed. The fact that UI Public Safety officers are defenseless against a
serious criminal is appalling.

Are they really supposed to protect us with Mace or a Taser against armed
criminals?

Even so, there is no reason that Public Safety, or any police force, should
have fully automatic high-powered rifles, grenade launchers, and armored
personnel carriers. They certainly shouldn't start acting like soldiers
committed to destroying the enemy.

The proper way for law enforcement to engage the public is with an eye to
constitutional safeguards. Police learn to protect Miranda rights, to
preserve life (even the criminal's), and to obey limits of constitutional
police power.

Military forces are trained to kill and maim with maximum force. Recent
events tempt tilting the balance of constitutional government in the
interest of security.

However, security can never be obtained if we fear the tyranny of those who
are charged with the enforcement of our laws.