Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Hidden provision a reason for concern

Denise Hewitt 
Opinion Columnist

This week, President Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Defense appropriations bills are pretty dry most years -- important, but dry. Usually, these bills authorize pay for the military, procurement, research and development expenditures, funding for war and other such exciting things. Appropriations bills are rarely extensively debated or examined by the public or the press. However, this historical lack of scrutiny had a high cost this year. 

This year, the bill contained a provision squished between a patent expansion for medals and hunting rights that essentially rescinds "posse comitatus" and grants the president extensive powers to declare martial law. 

The language of the bill is too broad, leaving it up to the president to decide when to use federal troops to "restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States" in situations where natural disasters or insurrection result in disorder. 

Without ever using the word posse comitatus or raising the issue with the public, the defense appropriations bill has reversed more than 100 years of U.S. legal tradition by effectively repealing the Posse Comitatus Act. 

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevented federal forces from being used as tools of domestic law enforcement. At the time, the act was passed as backlash against Reconstruction; however, the idea that the military should not be used as a tool for dealing with domestic disturbances has become a fixture in the American legal landscape. 

People have valid arguments for and against posse comitatus. The incident at Kent State on May 4, 1970, where National Guard troops killed four students as an anti-war protest spiraled out of control is an excellent example of why troops should not be used for law enforcement. Infantrymen just aren't trained in police tactics. On the other hand, the difficulties of responding to Hurricane Katrina demonstrate situations where federal troops could have been critical in an effective response. 

Such a major policy change shouldn't be made in the depths of an appropriations bill. We elect representatives to apply their judgment and pass legislation in the public interest. Part of that trust is knowing when an issue deserves public debate. In this case, it appears that trust was misplaced. 

Hewit, a history senior, 
can be reached at denise.uh@gmail.com