The Army On The Streets Pf Samson, Alabama

Why It Matters That The Army Was On The Streets Of Samson, Alabama

By J.D. Tuccille
March 19, 10:32 AM
Courtesy Of The Examiner

Now that the Army has conceded that 22 military police soldiers were dispatched from Fort Rucker to Samson, Alabama, in the wake of the horrific mass murder there, local officials are coming out to take responsibility for inviting the military presence and to thank the troops for their assistance. While local reaction to the presence of troops seems overwhelmingly to be one of gratitude, and the small-scale deployment was almost certainly well-intentioned, the actions likely violated federal law. It was also a step in the wrong direction.

Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward says he asked the local Army base for assistance because his department and the tiny Samson police department were simply overwhelmed by the murder spree that took the lives of 11 people.

“The lieutenant colonel called our [911] dispatch to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’” Ward told Army Times.

I asked for MPs to come in and relieve our personnel long enough so they could get something to eat."
--Sheriff Greg Ward

Sheriff Ward was reportedly relying on 12 of his own deputies plus ten officers from local police departments. The offer of help from an Army unit with which, by all accounts, people in the area have an excellent relationship must have been very welcome, indeed.

Ward went on to tell the newspaper, “I thought, let me call them back. So I asked for MPs to come in and relieve our personnel long enough so they could get something to eat.”

The offer of troops and their acceptance seems to be a sincere act of assistance by good neighbors.

But it's probably illegal.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, reads:

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.

The law has been trimmed and modified since then. In particular, the military can be used to put down insurrections or help in the wake of natural disasters -- when invited by state governors. The federal government can send troops of its own accord to suppress rebellions or when "major public emergencies" render state and local authorities incapable of protecting people's constitutionally guaranteed rights. The biggest hole in the law is the provision allowing for the use of troops to enforce drug prohibition and immigration laws, and to collect tariffs. But the Posse Comitatus Act still remains as a prohibition on the use of troops in most civilian law-enforcement roles.

There's a good reason for that. The history of mixing the military into civilian governance and law-enforcement activities is extremely unpleasant. Training and equipping troops to battle an enemy, and then turning them loose on your own population, turns out to frequently have nasty consequences.

The American experience with the domestic use of troops against people is, fortunately, limited. The most famous example was Reconstruction, when much of the country was under military occupation in the wake of the Civil War.

That the Posse Comitatus Act came out of Reconstruction should be an indicator of how well that went.

But Reconstruction was a long time ago. Is that experience still relevant?

Soldiers are aimed at enemies from outside the country. Police are supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force."
--Professor Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee

For a more contemporary example, look to our neighbors to the north. In 1970, after a flurry of violence by Quebec separatists sparking the "October Crisis," the Canadian government invoked the War Measures Act, effectively suspending civil liberties. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau then sent troops into the street -- not just in Quebec, but also in the nation's capital, Ottawa. Hundreds of suspected separatist sympathizers were arrested without warrants.

While popular at the time, the use of troops and extraordinary measures quickly became controversial because of the dire implications for due process, individual rights and dissent. No blood was shed, but the military presence gave the government overwhelming force which was used in ways that still spark debate.

To our south, in Mexico City, just days before the opening of the summer Olympics in 1968, soldiers opened fire on protesting university students, killing at least 40 and probably hundreds, though the exact number has never been established. Facedwith a political demonstration, soldiers responded with tanks and bullets.

Some countries have had enough of military intervention in civilian affairs. In 1948, after bloody fighting resulting from a disputed election, Costa Rica abolished its military completely.

Closer to home, law-enforcement agencies have increasingly turned themselves into civilian replicas of the Army, adopting military equipment, tactics and training with predictable consequences. Writing for the Cato Institute, Radley Balko documented as many as 40,000 violent raids each year to enforce even laws against nonviolent activities. The result has been dozens of deaths of innocent people, police officers and nonviolent offenders.

The problem is sufficiently widespread that it has been covered even in the pages of Popular Mechanics. Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee wrote:

Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. Soldiers are aimed at enemies from outside the country. They are trained to kill those enemies, and their supporters. In fact, “killing people and breaking things” are their main reasons for existence.

Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

That's the result of police playing at soldier. Put actual soldiers on the streets and ...

Which brings us back to the soldiers dispatched to offer a helping hand in Samson, Alabama. It was certainly a friendly gesture, intended to help a community through a very difficult time. There were no bad consequences and locals are thankful for the assistance.

But putting armed troops on the streets to act as police for even the best of reasons takes us down a path we don't want to follow.

email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com