New Fed Law Lets Reservists respond to disaster
Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012 | 3:18 p.m.As hurricane season arrives, governors have a new resource to call upon in the event of a major disaster: military reservists.
Historically, there's been no mechanism under federal law to order reservists to duty in response to a domestic emergency. But the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has changed that.
It gives governors the ability to request the help of the nation's 380,000 reservists in a natural or manmade disaster. Governors already can mobilize National Guard troops.
Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Luis Visot (Viz-OTT') told a disaster preparedness conference in Washington state on Thursday that the goal is to have reservists ready to respond within three days of such a request.
Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana didn't require such a response, so the new authority has yet to be used.
From Law Enforcement to Protection FROM the Military
Posse Comitatus Act
In 1878 the use of a posse comitatus was limited by the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act, passed in response to the use of federal troops to enforce reconstruction policies in the southern states, prohibited the use of the U.S. Army to enforce laws unless the Constitution or an act of Congress explicitly authorized such use. This act was amended five times in the 1980s, largely to allow for the use of military resources to combat trafficking in illicit narcotics. Posse Comitatus Act
Today, the Posse Comitatus Act has taken on a very different meaning from the one that it had in 1878. No longer associated with Reconstruction, it is a useful way to prevent the U.S. armed forces from directing their efforts against U.S. dissident groups. Public sentiment in favor of the Posse Comitatus Act is so strong that a 2006 law permitting an exception to the Act in cases of public disasters (in response to Hurricane Katrina) was repealed a year later The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Indeed, to quote the AP article "But the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has changed that"
Major Cities like Seattle and Oakland have had their police departments "federalized" and State's rights issues like voting rules or legalized marijuana have all come under attack by the Federal Government. Clear 10 th amendment violations and realms of the State. Why give the State government access to the military all the while subverting their Constitutional authority with Global initiatives and Federal mandates?
The conduct of the Government appears curious and questionable. Preparing or provoking? Service or sinister. The powers to build a domestic army should help the blogosphere make sense of some of the previous news. Is this point hollow, too?