The Posse Comitatus Act Explained
brennancenter.org
brennancenter.org
Which in addition to being morally indefensible is also illegal under this law. Half the country is applauding it.
He is also calling for the arrest of Governor Newsom.
(It should be noted that none of this is, of course, remotely as concerning as the tax deductable status of SWE salaries.)
Feel free to talk about Bay Area zoning issues and drug policies, or Brexit and the EU, or copyright law and AI, or Boeing and the FAA, or Edward Snowden and the NSA, BUT NO POLITICS!
This is NOT a "strict 'no politics' rule" .
Meanwhile topics that keep getting flagged in the last few months are new things like cuts to science budgets and institutions.
It’s too bad the “good hackers” have moved on and been replaced by selfish, money obsessed business fanatics.
"While the Posse Comitatus Act refers only to the Army and Air Force, a different statute extends the same rule to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act."
It includes the 2021 update which expanded the PCA’s coverage to include the Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force, in addition to the Army and Air Force, and the Modernization of Military Guidance in 2019 when The Department of Defense updated its internal guidance on the PCA, reflecting evolving interpretations and regulatory practices.
Not yet enacted into law: Strengthening the Posse Comitatus Act of 2020 (H.R. 7297) was introduced in the House in June 2020 to further expand the PCA’s applicability to all branches of the Armed Forces and prohibit the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Act.
There is no need to for you to have been hostile about this point. I know how much it bothers people here when people with primary experience comment. References to different statues and slightly different wording may seem irrelevant to you but they are not.
In any event, there is a more recent article from lawfare that explains the current situation better. GIYF. I don’t need the upvotes as much as you, so I didn’t feel the need to post it to a coder/startup board.
Also, the Brennan Center isn’t a totally neutral source and makes no mention nor discusses in any detail the basis currently being cited as the grounds for using the military the way it is being used, which the lawfare article does. It’s advocating for a change to the law in response to January 6th, not talking about the specific issues currently relevant.
> The President may employ the armed forces ... 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 ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order ... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such ... a condition ... so hinders the execution of the laws ... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. [1]
So if I understand correctly, given the modifications to Posse Comitatus, and to the Insurrection Act, there is a legal theory under which the President can "send in the troops." Isn't that the real issue here, whether those statutes and conditions apply?
The linked article doesn't seem to mention the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#2006%E2%80...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...
So this act is not relevant to today's news
If Newsom had deployed them instead of Trump, then your statement would be accurate.
I would imagine this is being done as a signal to the state of California not to incite insurrection or the Insurrection Act could be invoked.
I’m not making a judgment about the morality or correctness of the current federalization of the national guard, but we need to make sure we are not spreading misinformation at such a time and sticking to facts.
Edit:
I did just find this, so it seems they are being integrated somehow. So then yes, not clear how this would be legal:
https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-Releases/Article/421...
California isn’t “inciting” anything - this is a few people in a couple of parts of the city and so far it seems like a protest with some violence on the order of a bad Raiders game, nothing remotely like the 1992 riots much less an actual insurrection.
Still relevant to today's news
> However, when Guard personnel are called into federal service, or “federalized,” they become part of the federal armed forces, which means they are bound by the Posse Comitatus Act until they are returned to state control.