Making Martial Law Easier
New York Times Editorial
02/19/07 "New
York Times" - -- 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.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
