Reference no: EM133618860

Assignment:

As discussed, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the U.S. military services from engaging in law enforcement activities on U.S. soil. At the same time, we are now used to seeing National Guard and Coast Guard units heavily involved in disaster relief and response -- often including the need to maintain order in a chaotic situation where traditional law enforcement agencies are overwhelmed. In addition, the role of the Department of Defense in disaster response has expanded over the years -- particularly in the area of WMD threats where the military possesses considerable resources and expertise needed to respond to such events. We even have the creation of a new command -- NORTHCOM. To this new command are assigned a number of duties related to the National Response Framework.

Key to understanding the relationship between military units and disaster response is to remember that the Posse Comitatus Act only applies to military units acting under federal command as part of the U.S. Military -- what our chapter describes as units operating under Title 10. Units acting under the command of the State Adjutant General (Title 32 status) are considered state forces -- even if they are receiving federal pay and benefits. Posse Comitatus does not apply. The usefulness of this Title 32 status is strongly-related to the fact that State budgets can quickly become overwhelmed by a major disaster. Unlike the federal budget, States cannot print money or issue currency and it is much more difficult for states to raise or borrow funds short of raising taxes. Federal funds from a variety of sources are key to making up the shortfall disasters can cause. At the risk of sounding cynical, this is one of the reasons we so quickly see requests for, and issuance of, Presidential Declarations. Such declarations are one of the key methods for releasing those much needed resources.

The involvement of military units -- whether National Guard or regular military -- is not without its problems. For one, there is a distinct clash of cultures between the military and civilian first responders -- even though many of our first responders also serve in the National Guard. This clash is highlighted by a story told by International Association of Fire Chief's John Eversole during a June 9, 1999 hearing ("Preparedness Against Terrorist Attacks", House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management). At that hearing, Eversole described a training session provided by military personnel to civilian responders at the National Fire Academy. According to Eversole, when the military personnel began referring to acceptable losses in the event of an attack, the civilian attendees "went out of their minds" and were "one-step away from physical violence" (Hearing p.24). For civilian responders who are trained to try and put out every fire and save every life, the concept of "acceptable losses" was exceedingly hard to accept.

So our regular question for this week is:

Discussion: Based on this readings and your own experience (if any), evaluate the current role of the U.S. military (including the Coast Guard and National Guard personnel) in emergency management and response. Do you think that role should be expanded or reduced? In what way?