Making Martial Law
Easier
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, February 19, 2007
A disturbing recent phenomenon in
Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been
passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked
into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that
makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and
declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important
bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces,
including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement.
Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to
preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is
the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse
comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law
enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a
state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the
focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order.
Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops
as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease
outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing.
But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or
public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed
the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with
the nation’s governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of
Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by
the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress
should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they
must get a full and open debate.
|
