"R. David Steele" wrote in message

|Horse****-The military had it **** together from about the late 80s or
so, when
|I was in, on an aircarft catrier and as evidenced by the 100 hr 'war'
with
|Iraq. It was/is designed to be mobile and fight, fight anything from
small to
|large conflicts, NOT be policemen or border guards. Were yo ever in the
|military, i forget, but your comments speak volumes about what you 'seem'
to
|know about the military of the 80s thru today.

The military has always been the police.

No, only not really. Military forces were only used for civilian law
enforcement when the sheriff, marshall, etc. was faced with the equivalent
of an insurrection. The first historical incident of this kind in the U.S.
is the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC.

That was one of the
missions of the militia.

The militia was, and still can be, used to aid constitutional law
enforcement officers. Its use was rare.

Washington called out State Militias and lead them in the field to surpress
the Whiskey Rebellion. He is the only U.S. president to ever lead an army
in the field while in office.

Until the late 1800s, the military was
the primary federal police.

No, the primary "federal police" authority be the U.S. Marshall. That
person could have one or more deputies. Territories could also for counties
and elect county sheriffs. Towns had marshalls. The Army was there
primarily to control hostile aboriginals (the word "indian" now being
non-PC).

During the Reconstuction period in the former Confederacy the Army had a
MUCH more active police role, but that was a very short period and few Army
officers wanted that duty.

Due to abuses, that is why the Army
was restricted by the PCA (congress can give permission for the
Army to engage in police work, the Navy is not restricted).

You are correct that percieve Army excesses were the genesis of the PCA.
The Navy is not subject to the PCA, but is subject to a SECNAVINST from
about 1919 that imposes the same limitations.

|David As for the military killing people and breaking things, those
|days are long gone. International law of war really forces us to
|be far more selective. BRBR
|
|Garbage and how much 'international law' was ignored when we preemtively
|invaded Iraq.

Actually we were well within International Law. It was the UN,
especially the leaders of the UN who were making money off of the
food for oil program, that were acting outside of International
Law. As were France and Germany.

International law is a very dicey thing because it involves soverign states.
One of the attributes of soverngnty is that you answer to no other entity.
If a sovereign state surrenders some aspect of this by treaty (in reality a
form of contract) then they are bound by the terms of that contract. Most
treaties carry with them a method to give notice "opt out."

Whether or not we were within our rights under International Law to act
against Iraq is a matter over which reasonable people can differ. I think
we were (but it's thin); others disagree.

|David For the most part
|the military and the police tend to work under the same rules. BRBR
|
|Bull**** again. If there were friendlies being held by bad guys the
police
|would mobilize a whole team of negotiators, the military would storm the
house.
|there would be no due process and no attempt to enusre nobody was hurt,
they
|would smoke anybody in the house, as evidenced by the attack on Saddams
sons.

Police do the same thing.

As a general rule the police have, as their primary fuction, the
apprehension of criminals. They do not have a duty to protect any given
citizen. But their duty is APPREHENSION of criminals. They may use force,
including deadly force, when required by circumstance.

The soldier has no inherant duty to apprehend anyone. Within his rules of
engagement he may use whatever tactics, including deadly force, that he sees
as necessary to the accomplishment of his mission.

Or, put another way, the police officer has a general duty to announce
himself and give an accused time to surrender; a soldier can just bang away.

|david To a certain extend, yes. Just as law enforcement may arrest
|someone who has not yet committed a crime but has been planning
|one. BRBR

Not under the Constitution of the U.S. they can't. I can plan all the
crimes I want and no offense is committed. But the first time I take a
concrete step toward implimentation of my plan then I will probably become
subject to some criminal liability.

|Attacking a country, killing any combatants they come across is not
'arresting
|somebody that is suspected of something'. You are confusing the police
with the
|military and they are NOT the same.

They are the same, both are parts of the militia. What we have
now is an artificial construct.

No. The agencies in the U.S. are separate.

We are taking a risk in Iraq. IMO the risk is justified. YMMV.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.