|
I'm a little disappointed in Tom Marshall's (the author of the article) misunderstanding of military authorities, given his active Army background. His statement "Units from the National Guard are often seen rendering medical aid or distributing supplies, but they cannot use force against U.S. citizens," is only partially correct, and therefore conflicts with his premise that civilian LE needs an airborne rapid response capability.
It's true that National Guard units operating under Title 10 authorities (aka active duty orders) are limited by Posse Comitatus restrictions. However, NG personnel operating under State Active Duty or Title 32 are not restricted by Posse Comitatus, and can therefore carry out LE-like duties that include search, seizure, and arrest/detainment of US citizens. This is especially true for NG Military Police, given their LE training and duties, but LE duties are not limited to only MPs. States can also enter into agreements such that units from an outside state can operate in an affected state under the affected state's governor's authority, allowing them to conduct LE-like activities against US citizens if necessary.
Of course, all of this is completely predicated on the inability of local and state LE to carry out their duties on the scale required. Marshall's example of post-Hurricane Maria Puerto Rico doesn't support his premise, as local and territory LE, in concert with PRARNG MPs and other state NG LE brought in via helicopter (not airborne insertion) provided sufficient numbers of LEOs with the necessary authorities for conducting post-disaster LE operations. With the ability of the US Navy and USCG to provide a maritime basing option for helicopter transit, there is little need for civilian LE (outside of Federal LE direct support to SOF) to have an airborne insertion capability.
|