Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

we aren't really talking about using the military as police then, we're talking about effectively re-creating the Gestapo, a state military police force with broad powers

Not to nitpick, but the Gestapo was neither part of the military, nor was it a police force in the conventional sense - it was pretty much exclusively a tool for the persecution of the politically undesirable. Traffic regulation they weren't responsible for.

[NullForceOmega]

Fair enough.  I'm not well read on the Gestapo specifically, so I'll accept criticism of my comparison.  If we were to expand the duties of M.P.s however, they would still be effectively a new national-level military police force with a fairly extreme degree of enforcement power, and that would not really be a good idea.

[Zangi]

I'm just figuring that whoever decides to fast-track hire military into police would be smart enough to give at least some basic police training.  You don't just dump em into the job...  right?

Though, I suppose Murrican police training would need to be overhauled along with the police reforms.

[smjjames]

I hear what you're saying as far as the skills go nullforceomega, it's just that somehow the National Guard (which aren't actually full military I don't think?) seemed to be doing a better job at it that brief time. It's either that the Ferguson protestors didn't feel threatened by them (vs the police), it's discipline, training, higher and actual penalties, or a combination of all the above.

Also, we're looking only at the Ferguson police, who turned out to have some major problems, what about elsewhere? Also, when the state police took over, it was the same thing as with the National Guard.

Military (or National Guard) police are fine for the short term during natural disasters when the regular police are overwhelmed or stretched thin for a period of time, but I don't see them as a long term solution. Besides, military police is the realm of autocracies.

edit: The Gestapo were more of a secret police kind of deal.

[Loud Whispers]

Not to nitpick, but the Gestapo was neither part of the military, nor was it a police force in the conventional sense - it was pretty much exclusively a tool for the persecution of the politically undesirable. Traffic regulation they weren't responsible for.

Also as a semantic nitpick, state military police exist, tasked with the policing of the state's military. I think though what NullForceOmega's argument is that the Gestapo were a police force that operated outside the law, which made them uniquely positioned to act as secret police/political officers, much like the Soviet NKVD. An empowered political police force need not act like political officers, eliminating their department's enemies or their political superior's enemies, but the likelihood that such actions become routine will increase the longer such an institution exists, because if the power exists, people are going to use it if they can get away with it. And you can't exactly arrest secret police, so they'll get away with it

[nenjin]

The parts of the military acting as law enforcement in those places are M.P.s, they are already trained in the necessary skillsets to carry out those jobs.

MPs enforce military justice among military personnel and in military operations areas like bases or spots near the barracks.

MPs are not going around villages in Afghanistan doing law enforcement. Neither, technically, are soldiers. But they are boots on the ground dealing with local issues not dissimilar to how domestic police forces deal with different communities, whether that's trying to find out where insurgents are hiding themselves or their weapons, negotiating with tribal leaders for resources, intel, protection, etc, finding stolen goods, helping settle tribal or village disputes......I really think you underestimate the amount of civilian policing soldiers have to do in some op areas.

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, absolutely, the real problems that need to be addressed here are U.S. police training and institutions.  Ending the War on Drugs would be a very good first step, then we need to actively re-structure the existing institutions and training to be more focused on de-escalation, conflict resolution, and community outreach.  This would however be incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and in the case of ending the War on Drugs extremely unpopular for several reasons.

smjjames:  You're pretty much right on the money there, tho' it is important to note that the NG were called in for what amounts to riot duty, and the Ferguson police were the target of those protests, leading to greater friction that went away when soldiers were on the field instead of the police.  We can and have used military assets (tho' it is important to understand that the NG and Reserves aren't exactly the same as the Army proper) to help deal with high-tension situations, and that is part of their purpose, but they just aren't viable for long-term application to this problem.

Nenjin: Yes, the M.P.s are the ones carrying out those duties.  You are factually incorrect on this point.  They are not the ones gathering data on insurgents however, that duty falls to intelligence personnel.  The Army (and other branches of the military) are divided into different M.O.S. specifically so there are personnel with varied skillsets within the organization, those people are deployed where their skills are needed.

[smjjames]

The parts of the military acting as law enforcement in those places are M.P.s, they are already trained in the necessary skillsets to carry out those jobs.

MPs enforce military justice among military personnel and in military operations areas like bases or spots near the barracks.

MPs are not going around villages in Afghanistan doing law enforcement. Neither, technically, are soldiers. But they are boots on the ground dealing with local issues not dissimilar to how domestic police forces deal with different communities, whether that's trying to find out where insurgents are hiding themselves or their weapons, negotiating with tribal leaders for resources, intel, protection, etc, finding stolen goods, helping settle tribal or village disputes......I really think you underestimate the amount of civilian policing soldiers have to do in some op areas.

So, you're saying that the police are lacking in people/social skills? I guess that would make some sense in how some military vets make pretty good police(men/women), they're drawing on skills they learned while doing that.

@nullforceomega: I think his point is more that they have to interact with the locals.

[Loud Whispers]

So, you're saying that the police are lacking in people/social skills? I guess that would make some sense in how some military vets make pretty good police(men/women), they're drawing on skills they learned while doing that.

In particular while police are trained to deal with threats, assessing threats and neutralizing them, they're not trained in de-escalating situations.
Basically if your officers aren't trained to deal with things with anything but force, they're going to tend to use force

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, soldiers do interact with the local populace, usually in the form of basic community outreach, such as supplies, medical aid, infrastructure projects and in the case of the M.P.s aiding with legal matters and conflict resolution.  The U.S. military has a hearts and minds policy towards civilian populations that has soldiers carry out many tasks that are intended to make locals more comfortable with their presence.  This is nothing like being police officers however.

[TheBiggerFish]

...For crying out loud it is spelled populace.  :/

[smjjames]

The whole point though, as Loud Whispers implies, is people skills. If things get tense, you don't typically try to make things more tense unless you're looking for a fight.

[NullForceOmega]

...For crying out loud it is spelled populace.  :/

You are correct, I was using an improper form.  But if you aren't going to contribute, why didn't you just send a PM?

Yes, absolutely, the real problems that need to be addressed here are U.S. police training and institutions.  Ending the War on Drugs would be a very good first step, then we need to actively re-structure the existing institutions and training to be more focused on de-escalation, conflict resolution, and community outreach.  This would however be incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and in the case of ending the War on Drugs extremely unpopular for several reasons.

I addressed that.

[Loud Whispers]

The whole point though, as Loud Whispers implies, is people skills. If things get tense, you don't typically try to make things more tense unless you're looking for a fight.

Yeah, the tragic thing is it's unlikely the police are looking to start a fight, but they're running under the trained expectation that people will back down if threatened, instead of taking it as a provocation

[nenjin]

The U.S. military has a hearts and minds policy towards civilian populations that has soldiers carry out many tasks that are intended to make locals more comfortable with their presence.

US Police forces USED to do this. Some still do. It's call C.O.P. (Community-oriented policing.) In the late 90s/early 2000s, it was being touted by many police departments as a more effective strategy for dealing with urban populations by adopting some community outreach tactics.

Unfortunately, 9/11, increased budgets, a re-emphasis on military-type tactics and procedures, the last 7 years of race relations in this country....have pretty much put paid to C.O.P.

Arguably US police today need to win backs the hearts and minds of the people they have to deal with every day. They're lauded and held up as pinnacles of integrity and responsibility by the populations they serve the least.....while they terrify the populations they interact with the most.