firing a high-powered combat rifle in an airport could domoreharm than good

Steve Furlong sfurlong at acmenet.net
Fri Oct 5 16:32:54 PDT 2001


Tim May wrote:
> 
> On Friday, October 5, 2001, at 03:31 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
...
> > And wasn't there something about not using the military for police
> > matters? Oh, that's right, this is an _emergency_, so it's ok.
> 
> It's called "Posse Commitatus," and it's clear that troops cannot be
> used on U.S. soil.

Yah, I know. You're right, though, it should be spelled out, not only
for the non-USians on the list but for the products of the modern
American educational system. (Of which I am one, but I'm trying to
overcome it.)


> The recent deployments in airports are of the National Guard. These
> units are under controls of _governors_ of states, and are not covered
> by Posse Comitatus. "Calling in the National Guard" has been common for
> many decades.

Legally, you're right. But since the Guard units are partially trained
and equipped with federal money and operate under federal strictures, I
don't generally distinguish between state and federal military forces.

And of course Gov Davis, like so many others, are "fighting the last
war". The organized terrorists won't be going after planes for the
second punch, though half-witted copycats will. And the copycats could
be stopped by allowing off-duty senior combat soldiers to carry guns on
planes, but of course that would lessen the need for centralized power
and will never be countenanced.


By the way, I like the sig you used on your message. A bit lengthy, but
worth the read.

-- 
Steve Furlong    Computer Condottiere   Have GNU, Will Travel
  617-670-3793

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly
while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list