Re: US: Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak
Re: US: Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak
Although the discussions related to the potential effectiveness of the U.S. military are important to considier and although I have the same concerns about armed gangs and civil unrest as others, my concerns go more to the fundamental debate related to the separation of a State's jurisdication over civil law enforcement versus the military's jurisdiction over armed conflict with enemy combatants. Even the fact that the national guard and law enforcement are better trained for law enforcement and the military is better trained for is not really relevent to my fundamental concerns. That fact reinforces the concerns. Finally, I have no doubt that most military personnel would treat their fellow citizens as well or better than Iraqi citizens. But, frankly that still doesn't matter.
My concern is that since the reconstruction after the civil war we have not had federal combat troops with formal jurisdiction over U.S. soil. After that period in history, a bright line was established between civil law enforcement and military action. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to establish this bright line. An earlier thread discussed the Act and a very good article was posted that explained how the Act has effectively been eroded over time from a legal standpoint. Establishment of Northcom set the stage for the final blow to the Act. A large-scale crisis justifying the use of the military would probably kill any residual separation the Act established.
If we have a crisis, could the military be of assistance to maintain civil order - yes. Would many people accept or even welcome their assistance - yes. Would it be good for our nation's future? IMHO - no.
For me, it comes down to how much freedom are we willing to give up for more security? On a personal level, many people would give up their freedom to save their own life or that of their family members. Many of those same people would be willing to give their life or sacrifice in other ways to defend that freedom under other circumstances.
As discussed above, the military could provided needed help in many ways that doesn't involve the use of armed troops enforcing state and local laws. This assistance would free the national guard and law enforcement to address civil unrest.
/rant
But, I see this as a bigger question than just this particular crisis, as bad as it might be. I would not want to endure hardship due to civil unrest, but I still would rather suffer more through that circumstance than lose our unique system of government that allows for the autonomy of each State while maintaining a strong federal government for the good of each State. Many nations in history have dramatically changed their system of government on the heels of a crisis. I love our system of government as it was set up and as it matured after a catastrophic, bloody Civil War. I personally don't want to see it continue to change into something that no longer resembles that system.
