- (Military Participation - posse comitatus) "The term “posse comitatus” means the “force of the county.” Its doctrine dates back to English common law, in which a county sheriff could raise a posse comitatus to repress a civil disturbance or for other purposes. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 states (as amended):
"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."
"Over the past century and a half, the wording of the Posse Comitatus Act has remained essentially unchanged, but its use has become engrained in U.S. law and culture. Though there have been several incidents when the Act has been severely tested, this basic concept of civilian control – absent in too many other countries – has helped guarantee freedom from military oppression."
Source:Withers, George; Santos, Lucila; and Isacson, Adam, "Preach What You Practice: The Separation of Military and Police Roles in the Americas," Washington Office on Latin America (Washington, DC: November 2010), p. 3.
http://justf.org/files/pubs/1011pwyp.pdf - (Posse Comitatus Act - definition) "Americans have a tradition, born in England and developed in the early years of our nation, that rebels against military involvement in civilian affairs. It finds its most tangible expression in the nineteenth century Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. 1385. The Act forbids use of the Army and Air Force to execute civil law except where expressly authorized."
Source:Doyle, Charles, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, June 1, 2000), p. 1.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf - (Posse Comitatus Act - language) "The language of the [Posse Comitatus] Act mentions only the Army and the Air Force, but it is applicable to the Navy and Marines by virtue of administrative action and commands of other laws. The law enforcement functions of the Coast Guard have been expressly authorized by act of Congress and consequently cannot be said to be contrary to the Act. The Act has been applied to the National Guard when it is in federal service, to civilian employees of the armed forces, and to off-duty military personnel.
"The Act is probably only applicable within the geographical confines of the United States, but the supplemental provisions of 10 U.S.C. 371-381 appear to apply world-wide. Finally, the Act is a criminal statute under which there has never been a prosecution. Although violations will on rare occasions result in the exclusion of evidence, the dismissal of criminal charges, or a civil cause of action, as a practical matter compliance is ordinarily the result of military self-restraint."
Source:Doyle, Charles, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, June 1, 2000), Summary.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf - (Posse Comitatus Act - activities in violation) "Questions regarding which activities violate the Posse Comitatus Act arise most often in the context of assistance to civilian police. At least in that context, the courts have held that, absent a recognized exception, the act is violated (1) when civilian law enforcement officials make “direct active use” of military investigators, (2) when the use of the military “pervades the activities” of the civilian officials, or (3) when the military is used so as to subject citizens to the exercise of military power that is “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.”84 The act does not apply to the Navy or Marines85 and does not prohibit activities conducted for a military purpose that incidentally benefit civilian law enforcement bodies."
Source:Best, Richard A., Jr.; Elsea, Jennifer K., "Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, January 13, 2011), p. 19.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34421.pdf - (Posse Comitatus Act - statutory exceptions) "DOD [Department of Defense] personnel are permitted to provide training and expert advice to civilian law enforcement personnel, and may conduct maintenance on equipment it provides. However, DOD personnel are expressly authorized to operate the DOD-provided equipment only in support of certain federal law enforcement operations, which include counter-terrorism operations, renditions of suspected terrorists from a foreign country to the United States to stand trial, and investigations involving violations of certain laws that control imports, exports, immigration, drug trafficking, and terrorism.87 DOD personnel are authorized to operate equipment for the purpose of, among other things, detection, monitoring, and communication of the movement of air and sea traffic, as well as surface traffic outside of the geographic boundary of the United States and within the United States not to exceed 25 miles of the boundary (if the initial detection occurred outside of the boundary), and “aerial reconnaissance.”"
Source:Best, Richard A., Jr.; Elsea, Jennifer K., "Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, January 13, 2011), p. 20.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34421.pdf - (Posse Comitatus - drug war exception) "Late in 1988, the U.S. military’s active participation in America’s fight against illegal narcotics was further expanded by the George W. Bush administration through Public Law 100-456 that created amendments to USC Title 10, Chapter 18.22 The changes to public law now required the Department of Defense (DoD ) “to serve as the lead agency for the detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United States.”23 It also required the DoD, “to the maximum extent practicable,” to consider the needs of civil law enforcement agencies when planning and conducting military training or operations.24 The Secretary of Defense was now authorized to not only make available military equipment and facilities for law enforcement authorities, but also the personnel to train law enforcement agents in the operation and maintenance of equipment. Finally, Public Law 100 -456 authorized the DoD to provide the funds “sufficient to pay for all expenses of the National Guard of such State when engaged in drug interdiction assistance activities.”25
Source:Luoma, Jr., Benjamin C.," The U.S. Military and Security along the U.S. Mexico Border: Evaluation of its Role in the Post September 11th Era," Naval Postgraduate School (Monterey, California: December 2002), p. 11.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA... Military Participation - Data
(2012 - defense department requested counternarcotics budget) "Counternarcotics. The fiscal 2012 budget requests $1.2 billion to fund the military’s counternarcotic efforts. Included are funds to support efforts of combatant commanders against drug trafficking; to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate information; and to support domestic counternarcotic efforts. Also included in the OCO request are funds to support counternarcotic efforts in Afghanistan."
Editor's Note: The requested 2012 budget for the U.S. Department of Defense is $553 billion. This is 86% higher than the $316 billion DoD budget for 2001.
Source:"Summary of the DOD Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal," United States Department of Defense (Washington, DC: February, 14, 2011), p. 7.
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2011/0211_fiscalbudget/SUMMARY_OF_T...- (2000 - time spent on military monitoring of drug trafficking) "Since fiscal year 2000, the availability of U.S. and allied assets spent on interdiction operations in the transit zone [South America through the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean] — as measured in on-station ship days and flight hours -— has varied. U.S. and allied on-station ship days decreased from approximately 3,600 days in fiscal year 2000 to about 3,300 in fiscal year 2005, and U.S. and allied on-station flight hours increased from approximately 10,500 hours in fiscal year 2000 to almost 12,900 in fiscal year 2005. However, on-station ship days peaked in fiscal year 2001 and flight hours peaked in fiscal year 2002, but both have generally declined since then, primarily because Defense has provided fewer assets. Declines in Defense assets were largely offset by the Coast Guard, CBP US Bureau for Customs and Border Protection), and several allied European nations -— France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, with the assets available in recent years, JIATF-South (Joint Interagency Task Force-South) reports that it detected (made visual contact with) less than one-third of the known maritime drug movements."
Source:"Drug Control: Agencies Need to Plan for Likely Decline in Drug Interdiction Assets, and Develop Better Performance Measures for Transit Zone Operations," Government Accountability Office (Washington, DC: USGAO, Nov. 2005), GAO-06-200, p. 4.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06200.pdf - (2000 - counter-narcotics in Colombia) "The US Congress approved in July 2000 an emergency supplemental assistance request for fiscal years 2000-2001 of $1.32 billion, of which $862.3 million was allocated to Colombia and the balance to neighboring countries (primarily Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador) and to US agencies' Andean region antidrug operations. Of the $862.3 million allocated to Colombia, $521.2 million is new assistance to the Colombian armed forces and $123.1 is assistance to the police, with the rest ($218 million) going to alternative economic development, aid to displaced persons, judicial reform, law enforcement, and promotion of human rights.
"The bulk of the military assistance will support the Colombian armed forces' three counter-narcotics battalions, which are to receive 16 UH-60 Black Hawk and 30 UH-1H Huey transport helicopters."
Source:Rabasa, Angel & Peter Chalk, "Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional Instability" (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), pp. 62-63, from the web at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1339/
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1339/MR1339.ch6.pdf Military Participation - Research
(U.S. drug policy as a function of electoral politics) "The election year of 1996 marked the highest percentage of federal funds allocated to drug enforcement during the decade. The Clinton administration appointed former SOUTHCOM CINC, Gen (Ret) Barry McCaffery to the office of Director, National Drug Control Policy. Following the mandate of the President and Congress, the Cabinet level office maintained the 70/30 ratios between supply and demand reduction programs with the exception of 1999 and 2000. Programs that represented a traditional supply control approach included Presidential decertifications of Colombia, followed by the support of Plan Colombia."
Source:Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 46.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD...- (U.S. drug policy as a function of electoral politics) "According to the National Review, when [General Barry] McCaffery retired from the military in 1996 to become Director, Office of the National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, he was the youngest and most decorated four-star general in the Army. His appointment helped the administration’s new commitment to the get-tough approach.80 'The appointment was widely seen as a direct response to Republican election –year criticisms that the president was soft on drugs.'"
Source:Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 28.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... - (U.S. drug policy as a function of electoral politics) "Electoral politics was the reason why the preponderance of federal fiscal dollars resourced supply programs higher rather than demand reduction programs. The United States drug policy has been driven by the need to appear tough on drugs, regardless of results. Cocaine and heroin cost are declining and product purity is rising. Presidential leadership has a value, however, pressures to compromise may mitigate effectiveness. Political activism by an informed electorate to help shape the direction of public policy is needed."
Source:Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 46.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... Military Participation - Surveillance
(U.S. Department of Defense guidelines on information) According to a 2005 NBC News Investigates segment on the network's Nightly News, "The DOD has strict guidelines (.PDF link), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which they can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens."
The Department of Defense document referenced by MSNBC states that, "The purpose of these procedures is to enable DoD intelligence components to carry out effectively their authorized functions while ensuring their activities that affect U.S. persons are carried out in a manner that protects the constitutional rights and privacy of such persons."
Source:Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons," (Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense, December 1982), p. 13.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DOD.1982.IntelligenceCol... Myers, Lisa; Pasternak, Douglas; Gardella, Rich, and the NBC Investigative Unit, "Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?" NBC News Investigates (New York, NY: December 14, 2005)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigat...- (definition of electronic surveillance) According to a 2005 NBC News Investigates segment on the network's Nightly News, "The DOD has strict guidelines (.PDF link), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which they can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens."
The Department of Defense document referenced by MSNBC defines "Electronic Surveillance" as:
"Acquisition of a nonpublic communication by electronic means without the consent of a person who is a party to an electronic communication or, in the case of a non-electronic communication, without the consent of a person who is visibly present at the place of communication, but not including the use of radio direction finding equipment solely to determine the location of a transmitter."
Source:Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons," (Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense, December 1982), p. 9.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DOD.1982.IntelligenceCol... Myers, Lisa; Pasternak, Douglas; Gardella, Rich, and the NBC Investigative Unit, "Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?" NBC News Investigates (New York, NY: December 14, 2005)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigat... - (information on United States persons that may be collected by the Department of Defense) "According to a 2005 NBC News Investigates segment on the network's Nightly News, "The DOD has strict guidelines (.PDF link), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which they can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens."
The Department of Defense document referenced by MSNBC states in "C2.3 TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT MAY BE COLLECTED ABOUT UNITED STATES PERSONS, "Information that identifies a United States person may be collected by a DoD intelligence component only if it is necessary to the conduct of a function assigned the collecting component, and only if it falls within one of the following categories [that include]:
"C2.3.1. Information Obtained With Consent. Information may be collected about a United States person who consents to such collection.
"C2.3.2. Publicly Available Information. Information may be collected about a United States person if it is publicly available.
"C2.3.10. Narcotics. Information may be collected about a United States person who is reasonably believed to be engaged in international narcotics activities."
Source:Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons," (Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense, December 1982), p. 17.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DOD.1982.IntelligenceCol... Myers, Lisa; Pasternak, Douglas; Gardella, Rich, and the NBC Investigative Unit, "Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?" NBC News Investigates (New York, NY: December 14, 2005)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigat... - (domestic surveillance) "There has been a massive shift from surveillance and intelligence-gathering based on a factual predicate—such as specific information or a lead about a suspicious person or event—to surveillance and intelligence-gathering intended to obtain vast troves of data on millions of people. The NSA has been given authority to acquire and analyze the international calls and e-mails of Americans in the U.S., an intelligence activity that was formerly conducted by the FBI. The latter traditionally investigated based on some factual predicate; the NSA “vacuums” information in the hope that it may be useful in the future. Turning the NSA’s supercomputing capabilities inward on Americans, when they were previously directed outward towards foreigners overseas, is an enormous change. In addition, the intelligence agencies not only collect, but also retain billions of items of data on Americans on the theory that they may be useful in the future, including data gathered by commercial entities as well as that collected by the government directly."
Source:Martin, Kate, "The New Domestic Surveillance Regime: Ineffective Counterterrorism That Threatens Civil Liberties and Constitutional Separation of Powers," The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups (Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Fall 2008) Volume 2, Number 2, p. 57.
http://home.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Advance_Volume_2_Number_2_Fal... - (domestic surveillance) "A secret Pentagon database obtained by NBC News, parts of which were published in December 2005, had revealed that nearly four dozen peaceful political gatherings, most of which were aimed at protesting military recruitment or the war in Iraq, were included among more than 1500 “suspicious incidents” reported across the United States. (Lisa Myers et al., Is The Pentagon Spying on Americans? MSNBC.com, Dec. 14, 2005.) Subsequent news reports revealed that a highly secretive component of the Department of Defense, the Counterintelligence Field Activity Agency (“CIFA”), had been accumulating and maintaining information about domestic organizations and their peaceful political activities. CIFA, whose size and budget are classified, had been directed to track “potential terrorist threats” against the Department of Defense through reports known as Threat and Local Observation Notices (“TALON”)."
Source:American Civil Liberties Union, "No Real Threat: The Pentagon’s Secret Database on Peaceful Protest," (New York, NY: January 2007), p. 1.
http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/safefree/spyfiles_norealthreat_20070117.p... - (Department of Defense TALON reports) "The Air Force Office of Special Investigations developed the TALON report format in 2001 for its Eagle Eye Program, a neighborhood watch program to detect and report suspicious activity of possible targeting of Air Force interests by terrorists. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations definition states that:
"The TALON report is a law enforcement report designed to report anomalies, observations that are suspicious against the steady state context, and immediate indicators of potential threats or antiterrorism concerns. TALONs are raw, non-validated information, may or may not be related to an actual threat, and by their very nature, may be fragmented and incomplete.
"Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum, “Collection, Reporting, and Analysis of Terrorist Threats to DoD Within the United States,” May 2, 2003 (Appendix F), instituted the TALON report program DoD-wide. The memorandum states that DoD had no formal mechanism to collect and share nonvalidated domestic threat information between intelligence, counterintelligence, law enforcement, and force protection entities and to analyze that information for indications of foreign terrorist activity. The DoD TALON report was established to capture nonvalidated information on domestic threats, pass that information to analysts, and incorporate it into the DoD process for warning against terrorism. A TALON report is raw information reported by concerned citizens and military members about suspicious incidents. Information in TALON reports is not validated, may or may not relate to an actual threat, and, by its very nature, may be fragmented and incomplete. The purpose of the TALON report is to document and immediately disseminate information on potential threats to DoD personnel, facilities, and resources."
Source:Inspector General, United States Department of Defense, "The Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) Report Program," (Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense, June 27, 2007), p. 1.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/talon.pdf - (definition of a physical search) As defined by the United States Department of Defense, a "Physical search means any intrusion upon a person or a person's property or possessions to obtain items of property or information. The term does not include examination of areas that are in plain view and visible to the unaided eye if no physical trespass is undertaken, and does not include examinations of abandoned property left in a public place."
Source:Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons," (Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense, December 1982), p. 41.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DOD.1982.IntelligenceCol... - (chronology of military participation in the drug war)
Editor's Note: The number in parenthesis following each quote references its respective source below.
Brief Chronology of Domestic Military Involvement and the Posse Comitatus Act Year Event
1878 (Congress enacts Posse Comitatus Act) "Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that placed strict limits on the military’s participation in civilian law enforcement duties.” (1) 1970 (National Guard called out against students) "... the Ohio National Guard was called out [by Governor James Rhodes] to put down an anti-war protest on the campus of Kent State University." (2) 1972 (Military called during seige) "During the siege [of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota], military was called in and used in several ways, including aerial reconnaissance flights, as undercover agents, and for advice in negotiations, logistics and rules of engagement." (2) 1981 (Posse Comitatus Act amended) "...Congress enacted a series of clarifying authorities and restrictions on the use of the military to assist law enforcement.14 Included in this law are several specific authorities in which the military can share information, training and equipment with law enforcement agencies.” (2) 1986 (first military anti-drug effort) “...Bolivia became the scene of the first major antidrug operation on foreign soil to publicly involve U.S. military forces. One hundred sixty U.S. troops took part in Operation Blast Furnace...” (2) 1988 (defense department to lead transit drug detection) “... the U.S. military’s active participation in America’s fight against illegal narcotics was further expanded by the George W. Bush administration through Public Law 100-456 that created amendments to USC Title 10, Chapter 18 [Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies]. The changes to public law now required the Department of Defense (DoD) 'to serve as the lead agency for the detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United States.'” (1) 1989 (military task force formed to counter illegal drug flow) “In response to President George H.W. Bush’s declaration of the 'War on Drugs,' General Colin Powell, then Commanding General of the U.S. Army’s Forces Command, issued the order ... that established JTF-6 [Joint Task Force-Six] at Fort Bliss, Texas. JTF-6 was established to serve as the planning and coordinating operational headquarters to support local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies within the Southwest border region to counter the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.” (3) 1989 (military advisors deployed to South America) “President George H. W. Bush’s so-called 'Andean Initiative... involved the deployment of seven Special Forces teams and approximately 100 military advisors to Colombia, Bolivia and Peru to train the armies of the region to fight the drug war.” (4) 1989-1993 (military assistance increased to South America) “...the George H.W. Bush administration and U.S. congressional leaders committed to a five-year package of greatly increased counter-drug assistance to Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.” (2) 1990s (military monitoring of the 'air bridge') “United States Southern Command began a program called 'Support Justice' to assist in the aerial monitoring of the air bridge [used to transfer semi-refined cocaine from rural growing areas to processing plants and to destination countries] ... [and] to 'confirm anecdotal law enforcement information regarding the frequent use of small private aircraft to move ... cocaine'" (4) 1991 (Posse Comitatus Act amended to include counter-drug assistance) Via the National Defense Authorization Act for 1991, the Posse Comitatus Act was amended so that “during fiscal years 1991 through 2002, the Secretary of Defense may provide counter-drug activity assistance upon request of federal or state law enforcement agencies.” (5) 1993 (military counter-drug operations shift to South America) “President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 14 (PDD 14),9 which shifted the focus of U.S. counter-drug operations from the 'transit zone in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to the source zone, chiefly Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.'” (4) 1995 (military anti-drug task force expanded) “By directive of the Commanding General of U.S. Army Forces Command, JTF-6's area of responsibility was expanded to include the entire continental United States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.” (3) 1997 (innocent teenager killed by Marines) “... a teenager named Esequiel Hernández, a U.S. citizen, did not know that four U.S. Marines were concealed in camouflage in the area where he was herding goats while carrying a 22-caliber rifle, which he often did to protect the herd against snakes and other animals. At one point, one Marine felt that another concealed Marine was in danger because of the teenager and he opened fire, killing Hernández instantly.” (2) 1998 (military funds Colombian counternarcotics batallion) “... meeting in Cartagena, U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Colombian Defense Minister Rodrigo Lloreda agreed to establish a Counternarcotics Battalion in the Colombian Army. The battalion, financed at first entirely by accounts in the U.S. defense budget.” (2) 2000 (military assistance for Colombian anti-drug missions) The U.S. Congress approved “a $1.3 billion package of mostly military aid to Colombia and its neighbors – a contribution to a larger strategy called “Plan Colombia” – the military’s resistance to anti-drug missions, whether counter-guerrilla or otherwise, wore away.” (2) 2001 (aircraft shot down killing missionary and daughter) Under the Air Bridge Denial (ABD) program, “... a Peruvian A-37 interceptor, operating as part of a joint U.S.-Peruvian counternarcotics mission, fired two salvos of machine gun fire into a small Cessna float plane after it had been identified as a probable drug trafficking aircraft. ... Two people on the aircraft were killed, a U.S. missionary and her infant daughter, both killed by the gunfire from the Peruvian aircraft. ... In the wake of the tragedy that took two innocent lives, programs in both Peru and Colombia were suspended pending a review of safety procedures.” (4) 2003 (air bridge monitoring resumes) ABD program restarts in Colombia. (6) 2004 (military anti-drug task force mission expanded) “JTF-6 was officially renamed JTF North and its mission was expanded to include providing homeland security support to the nation’s federal law enforcement agencies.” It’s mission statement is: “Joint Task Force North supports Drug Law Enforcement Agencies in the conduct of Counter Drug/Counter Narco-Terrorism operations in the USNORTHCOM area of responsibility to disrupt trans-national criminal organizations and deter their freedom of action in order to protect the homeland.” (3)(7) 2004 (air bridge monitoring changes trafficking patterns) Office of Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN) reported that Colombia ABD program “forced down and/or destroyed over 28 suspected narcotics trafficking aircraft, … seized 7.9 metric tons of illicit drugs ... [and] Resulted in changed narcotics trafficking patterns. (6)” 2006 (National Guard troops ordered to U.S./Mexico border) “President [George W.] Bush ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol for a two-year period in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. ... They operated surveillance systems, analyzed intelligence, installed fences and vehicle barriers, built roads, and provided training.35 The deployment became known as 'Operation Jump Start.' This was the largest number of soldiers on the border since the Mexican Revolution ninety years earlier.” (2) 2006 (Posse Comitatus Act repealed) “President George W. Bush signed into law the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. That Act included a section that essentially repealed Posse Comitatus: 'The Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.'29 It amended the U.S. Code to allow the president to use the military 'to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States.'” (2) 2007 (Posse Comitatus Act restored) "When the [above] little-known provision in the FY 2007 Defense Authorization bill became more widely understood, the section was quickly repealed in the next year’s Authorization bill, thus restoring the effect of the Posse Comitatus Act." (2) 2007 (military anti-drug assistance to Mexico) At a “... meeting in Mérida, Yucatán, Presidents Calderón and Bush signed an agreement for a new security cooperation program, called the Mérida Initiative. This proposal provided Mexico and Central America with $1.6 billion in assistance, most of it military and police equipment and training, from 2008 to 2010.” (2) 2010 (National Guard troops ordered to U.S./Mexico border) “President Barack Obama announced the intention to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border again. These troops will join the 340 already there under the 'State Counter Drug Programs,' assisting law enforcement with surveillance and intelligence gathering." (2) Source:(1) Luoma, Jr., Benjamin C., "The U.S. Military and Security along the U.S. Mexico Border: Evaluation of its Role in the Post September 11th Era," Naval Postgraduate School (Monterey, California: December 2002).
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA... (2) Withers, George; Santos, Lucila; and Isacson, Adam, "Preach What You Practice: The Separation of Military and Police Roles in the Americas," Washington Office on Latin America (Washington, DC: November 2010).
http://justf.org/files/pubs/1011pwyp.pdf
(3) "History of Joint Task Force North," United States Department of Defense.
http://www.jtfn.northcom.mil/subpages/history.html
(4) Huskisson, Major Darren C., "The Air Bridge Denial Program and the Shootdown of Civil Aircraft under International Law," Air Force Law Review (Maxwell AFB, Alabama: 2005) Vol. 56.
http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081009-011.pdf
(5) Doyle, Charles, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, June 1, 2000).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf
(6) U.S. Representative Mark E. Souder, "Foreign Ops: Talking Points on Counternarcotics Efforts," (Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, 2005).
http://www.cq.com/graphics/hotdocs/foreign-ops-103004.pdf
(7) "Joint Task Force North Mission," United States Department of Defense.
http://www.jtfn.northcom.mil/subpages/mission.html
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Military Participation - Posse Comitatus Act
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment