Since the earliest days of the republic, Americans have developed “a dependent, yet uneasy relationship with the military,” William Banks said, referring to the theme of his new book.

As part of the Campbell Public Affairs Institute lecture series, Banks, the interim dean of Syracuse University’s College of Law, sat down Tuesday afternoon with James Steinberg, dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, in Eggers Hall to discuss Banks’ book “Soldiers on the Home Front,” which was released in January. About 35 people attended the discussion.

The book, co-authored by Stephen Dycus, a professor in the University of Vermont’s law school, examines the domestic role of the United States military in the history of the country.

Banks said the U.S. has cautiously embraced the military at home.

“We understand the value of a highly disciplined and well-equipped experienced fighting force to defend against foreign invaders or to help out civilian authorities who are overwhelmed by domestic violence or natural disasters,” Banks said. “But we also recognize that even under civilian control those forces hold the potential for mischief.”

Banks said the book focused on the current and future domestic activities of U.S. military so that readers would understand the significance of those activities to civil liberties, national security and representative government.

The book also presented the history of the U.S. military’s involvement in domestic affairs. Banks read an excerpt from the book about how former President Andrew Jackson was adamant in keeping martial law during and after the War of 1812. Fearful of a British attack on New Orleans, Banks said, Jackson instituted martial law in December 1814, assuming full control of the city and the civilian population. After the British force was defeated in the Battle of New Orleans, the threat was removed and the war had formally ended. Nevertheless, Jackson refused to lift the martial law, Banks said, despite objection from a state senator and a federal judge.

Banks said this action by Jackson is evidence of Americans’ dependent and uneasy relationship with the U.S. military.

Banks added that the framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the concept of “separation of powers” and a federal system to share responsibilities of internal security between a national government and states, which also prevents overreach by the military. At the same time, Banks said they anticipated that military forces might be required to perform domestically, and knew the troops sometimes might need to help enforce civilian laws, only to fall short in articulating when such action is justified.

Banks said military influence has expanded over time because the original legal framework for domestic use of the military under civilian control has “eroded” and civilian political leaders have abused the legal authority to use the military domestically in the past and could do so in the future.

“We hope that if lawmakers read the book they might be prompted to enact measures to better balance the risks and benefits and accordance with the rule of law,” Banks said.

Steinberg said in terms of intelligence and information, activities conducted through the National Security Agency and other civilian agencies happen to reside with the military, even though those actives are not martial.

“But because the military commands a great deal of respect, we know that in terms of trying to get resources for functions and capability, you are more likely to persuade Congress if it’s coming from the military,” Steinberg said.

Published on March 22, 2016 at 11:15 pm

Contact Satoshi: ssugiyam@syr.edu | @SatoshiJournal