Talk:Posse Comitatus Act

message: The Homeland Security section needs cleaning up in some way as it does not introduce why the section is relevant very clearly. Perhaps because I do not live in the United States it is less clear than to a North American but this still means that the section requires cleanup.
Hydraton31 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion 2005

message: Before the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) the US Coast Guard was under the Department of Transportation. During a declared war they were under the US Navy, similar to the US Marine Corps. Even now since they aren't under the control of the DoD The Posse Comitatus Act is not an issue for them and IMO this should be somehow expressed.
The USCGs relationship to the US military has always be a bit of an enigma.
===Deleted bad reasoning===
The USCG's relationship to the US military is not an enigma.  It is an armed service.  Being part of the DoD is not a requirement nor ever was to be "US military."  The applicability of the posse comitatus act to the USCG has absolutely nothing to do with it being under the DoD or not.  The posse comitatus act applies to 2 enumerated services: army and air force.  It doesn't apply to anything else or to the DoD as a whole.  The Navy has decided to adopt the same role as a non-law enforcement agency through its own internal regulations but could easily reverse that if it wanted to on its own without congress amending the act.   There was a statement that said the act doesnt apply to the USCG because it is not part of the DoD.  I removed everything after "USCG" because that is factually incorrect. It does not apply to the USCG because the act does not specifically state it applies to the USCG or any department that the USCG is in, was in, or could be in. The act does not apply to the DoD. it just so happens that every branch currently within the DoD has the act applying to it, either because the act says so or because the branch wants it to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.216.44 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: USCG correction needed?

message: The USCG's relationship to the US military is not an enigma.  It is an armed service.  Being part of the DoD is not a requirement nor ever was to be "US military."  The applicability of the posse comitatus act to the USCG has absolutely nothing to do with it being under the DoD or not.  The posse comitatus act applies to 2 enumerated services: army and air force.  It doesn't apply to anything else or to the DoD as a whole.  The Navy has decided to adopt the same role as a non-law enforcement agency through its own internal regulations but could easily reverse that if it wanted to on its own without congress amending the act.   There was a statement that said the act doesnt apply to the USCG because it is not part of the DoD.  I removed everything after "USCG" because that is factually incorrect. It does not apply to the USCG because the act does not specifically state it applies to the USCG or any department that the USCG is in, was in, or could be in. The act does not apply to the DoD. it just so happens that every branch currently within the DoD has the act applying to it, either because the act says so or because the branch wants it to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.216.44 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted bad reasoning

message: I just reverted an unsourced statement:
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed October 17, 2006, (Section 1076) has effectively repealed this Act.
I came to this article because I was looking for informaton on this act, and it's possible that the text is accurate, but the only source I've found so far that makes the above assertion is an editorial.  I'd like to see some solid references before it's added back in, but since the original author was an IP user, I've got to make the appeal here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Warner act text

message: * I have added the translation of Posse Comitatus as a section. This should give an historical reference to what the meaning is about. Mark Preston (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Etymology

message: This needs rewriting since it just seems to restate the Insurrection Act.
Roadrunner (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: See the USC referenced above, apparently from Lindorff .  Note that the quotes above are partial quotes of the section.  The entire part referred to is a listing and description of the already existing exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, not new exceptions.  According to Part 215, the purpose is to establisher uniform DOD policies, etc., when the U.S. military is used in civilian circumstances. Beyond the Lindorff reference,  are there unbiased sources that support this interpretation? — ERcheck (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Packard Memo

message: For longterm wiki use this section should be re-written.  In addition it states "original text" date of 1807 with a passing date of 1878.  I do not know the facts but there is definitely something wrong with the time lines. JMJimmy (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1807 date refers to when the Insurrection Act (of 1807) was enacted, which is related to the Posse Comitatus Act (which itself passed in 1878). The 2007 Defense Bill modified the wording of the law (which had stood since 1807). Those changes have now been repealed, changing the wording back to the original wording. das (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent legislative events

message: That Bush attached a signing statement to a 2008 repeal of provisions in a 2006 bill appears three times in different parts of the article:
* Recent legislative events
* Homeland security
* Natural disasters
Those should be combined.
However, note that there is a contradiction between two of the accounts. The one in Homeland security says the bill was passed in early 2006, whereas in Natural disasters we are told that Bush asked for the changes in Sept. 2006. He would not have asked for the changes in Sept. if they'd already been made earlier that year.
WagePeace (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The signing statement on the 2008 defense bill has no effect on the repeal. As such, references to the signing statement have been removed. Regarding the chronology, the bill had already been more or less hammered out, but had not yet been signed into law and agreed to by both houses. das (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy with a contradiction

message: national guard at g20 seems to have violated this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.145.37 (talk) 
:They were probably operating under State authority, not Federal authority. - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Guard under state authority is not covered by PCA. das (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: g20

message: The header of this article says:
"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain..."
Hey, what about the US Navy and the US Marines? No mention, so it is legal to shell west coast cities with 16" battleship grenades or invade them with AAV7s if they refuse to pay federal taxes? 91.83.19.117 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible omission?

message: The Posse Comitatus Act, as an Act of Congress, can be repealed whenever is is politically expedient to do so.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something related to the editing of the article hidden in your message above?  This is not a chat forum about the subject matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

text: You added the above comment to the article, which I have removed. Yes, Congress can ammend/repeal any act of Congress, and they have amended this act on several occasions. However, the rest is supposition/opinion, and needs to be cited from a reliable source to remain. There can be other reasons besides "politically expedient", such as war. Also, the act's suspension or ammendment in WW@ needed also a citation. Finally, Chairboy is correct about this not being a forum. - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: I believe the Marines are prohibited too.  The first paragraph, however, omits them.  Is that an error?
--Atikokan (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Marines?

message: There are a lot of questions regarding who the act does or does not apply to. Hopefully this will clarify things.
A great deal of confusion arises because people paraphrase the Posse Comitatus Act to say "the military can't conduct law enforcement." This causes people to make assumptions such as "since the Coast Guard conducts law enforcement, they can't be part of the military," or "the Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited from conducting law enforcement because of Posse Comitatus."
The truth of the matter is, Posse Comitatus only prohibited the Army from conducting law enforcement. When the Army Air Force become the U.S. Air Force, the act was amended so it would still be included. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard are not addressed in the act; it only applies to the Army and Air Force.
It is true that the Navy and Marine Corps have the same restrictions on law enforcement as the Army and Air Force, but this is through other policies, rules, and regulations, not the Posse Comitatus Act. None of the restrictions have ever applied to the Coast Guard, which acts as a military and law enforcement service at all times.
New Hampshirite (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability

message: Is it true that the National Defense Authorization Act recently signed by President Obama renders the Posse Comitatus Act irrelevant? If so, the article should be updated to reflect this. 76.25.176.244 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NDAA

message: This doesn't read very well, and looking back through the edits it appears that someone changed it from "does not" to "DOES" about a month ago (in caps, which were later edited out).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.22.32 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contrary to popular belief, the Act, does prohibit..." 

message: What does drone tracking of civilian motor vehicles as training have to do with the Posse Comitatus Act? It's not policing, it's not reporting to law enforcement, it's simply tracking a vehicle in preparation for later military duties overseas.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper term is UAV. The first and second sentences of that article directly address the issue you have with the word drone.216.96.229.52 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drone Training 

message: Pre-existing text on the act did not describe the restriction of military arrest powers to outside of the United States and to non-US citizens, whereas lawful residents of the US, US Citizens and those arrested or captured inside of the United States are beyond the authority of the military. That wasn't clear in the original prose, but multiple conspiracy theorists ignore that section, this gives more even and factual scope of authority information.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added restrictions of authority under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

message: Have been wanting to beef up this article for over a year with various applications. Here's a very interesting one just found will add for my future reference and in case anyone else wants to jump in :-)
*http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024565988_navyporn1xml.html 9th Circuit tosses child-porn evidence, cites Navy snooping], Mike Carter, Settle Times/ 9/18/14 Quote: The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision handed down last week, said the 2012 prosecution of Michael Allan Dreyer by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle demonstrated Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents “routinely carry out broad surveillance activities that violate” the Posse Comitatus Act, a Reconstruction-era law that prohibits the military from enforcing civilian laws. 
Not having done research on this topic in a few years, I can't remember off hand notable cases, but this is the sort of thing that needs adding. (And then there's all the discussion of interaction of posse commitatus and other laws passed in 2000s which allegedly affected it, some of which may have expired. But it's good to get it all in there.) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Sounds like a good topic to write a law review article on at least. I'm sure the legal scholarship is going to have something to say. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That most certainly is news to me. A military police investigator most certainly violated the act, both in the letter of the law and erased its intent. What is more astonishing is that the case was prosecuted at all, for any prosecutor should know of the act and its prohibition of law enforcement action by military personnel outside of their installation, save in very narrow circumstances involving military personnel and military contractors. That said, a brief entry in the article on case law regarding these offenses against the act would be noteworthy.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal cases and recent related regulations

message: The unique issues relating to the District of Columbia may pose another set of exclusions, but I don't want to add it without others' input (as I'm not 100% of this, myself).  In this case, the President's command over the District of Columbia National Guard (and corresponding Air National Guard) may allow the President to directly activate the militias for uses otherwise reserved for state governors, and may also activate the adjacent Maryland and Virginia National Guards for use within D.C. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As in the case of the Bonus Army. Jens-Egon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: D.C. National Guard

message: A citation needed tag has been inserted with respect to the statement that U.S. Costgaurd is not subject to the act. The reason for this is that the statement would apparently have to be either backed by specific authority of law or a court decision, which should appear as an appropriate reference, per applicable Wikipedia policy. 71.91.178.54 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy includes WP:LEADCITE, and the fact that the Coast Guard (and that's the correct spelling, by the way) is not subject to the Act is sourced later in the article. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert Citation Need Tag 

message: This is my first time so apologies for any mistakes I am making.
This bullet point was deleted several times and has been readded by bots) several times. This point should either be folded into the second bullet point (Federal armed forces used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, ...) or removed entirely. The current wording is very ambiguous as the referred action was also done under an exception in the Insurrection Act instead of presidental authority alone. It falsely suggests that POTUS has the authority to deploy federal troops to enforce federal at will.
It was added without sources and without discussion despite several deletions and rollbacks since it was added in February 2017.
2A02:8388:C80:6280:3022:3669:5DCB:2C27 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusions and limitations --> Enforcement of federal law