NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not advocating martial law, I was just wondering: What is the best reason for separating the military and the police? They seem to fulfill similar roles and separation only creates bureaucracy.

In other words, why is Posse Comitatus necessary?

You´re kidding right? Both have totaly diferent views and objectives.

The military has the sole purpose of killing and destroying the enemy as quickly and eficiently as possible. The police task is to stop people from killing others, and only use mortal force in very few cases. Soldiers kill, police arrest.

A police officer has to think twice before pulling his gun, while the soldier is trained to kill anything that moves and looks funny.

Not to mention the training is totaly diferent, and training and equiping a professional soldier is more time consuming and costly.

Wow.

Okay, I suppose you can start with the difference in how they evolved. Armies have been around since, well, since people started fighting each other en masse. Policing is entirely different, as it evolved as a form of civic responsibility. Policing is about providing the common people a sense of peace and order and the method of the state for resolving civic disputes. Armies, are largely used to resolve international disputes.

There's also the very important issue of authority and mandate. Policing generally falls under the jurisdiction of whatever form of law they are enforcing; i.e. municipalities for municipal laws and the federal government for federal laws (of course this varies.) Armies are almost always federal in nature, and in control by the executive authority.

Most importantly, policing is far more accessable and answerable to the populace at large, while as the presence of army as 'police' implies some form of control by the executive authority. The moment the army is also the police, you almost automatically have a 'police state'. One where the will of the executive branch is enforced by people trained to kill enemy combatants.

Aside from the other reasons given, one might point out that many states dont want the military to get too powerful.
Theres this little thing called a 'military coup', most people want to avoid it. Giving the military police authority has been shown to generally not be a good idea.

Ok, thanks, I couldn't think of a good reason.

Who watches the watchers and all that.

What about Military police though?? They are trained in military tactics as well as doing with police issues on Military bases I assume.

What about Military police though?? They are trained in military tactics as well as doing with police issues on Military bases I assume.

Military Law, as it regards members of the military. Nothing to do with civilians.

But as the first poster may have indicated if a national government ever wanted to merge a military and a police force, the best way to do it would be by using military police. However to note the other posters before made very good points why not to have both forces merged together because of the consequences and they mostly do different things in general.

Gendarmes. Or something.

That said large standing armies, or large police forces are a sign of tyranny.

But as the first poster may have indicated if a national government ever wanted to merge a military and a police force, the best way to do it would be by using military police. However to note the other posters before made very good points why not to have both forces merged together because of the consequences and they mostly do different things in general.

Most of the time, merged police/military are occupational forces. They are meant to police in war zones, sometimes as peacekeepers, often times as conqeurors. The shoot to kill mentality is not welcome in standard policing.

Military = waging war

Police = investigating crime

What about Military police though?? They are trained in military tactics as well as doing with police issues on Military bases I assume.

They spend just as much time preparing for military missions such as convoy escort, guarding POWs, guarding rear areas, and directing supply traffic.

Police are around to keep the peace. They handle matters of breaking the law or disturbing the peace. They have to be knowledgeable about law, diplomatic (handling domestic violence is generally tricky), know the locality very well (good working relationship with key members of the local area, know who the major players are in the local criminal elements, etc), and be able to integrate among the people to serve the local community.

Military units are all about being able to kill and violently suppress foreign populations. They are trained in effective ways of storming unfamiliar areas to kill others, using heavy weaponry to destroy strategic targets, controlling an area by brutally oppressing the locals, and generally large-scale death and destruction.

I would hope that these basic descriptions would make the separation obvious.

Yes, you could train your military units to operate as police in whatever area they are deployed in, but that would take absurd training times, limited usability (unless you intend a military occupation for decades), and would blunt their effectiveness in actual combat (you can only train and specialize in so much - there is a reason why "jack of all trades" is supposed to be followed up with "master of none").

This is also why I think it is ill-advised to attempt to use the military to 'keep the peace' in hostile areas. All they do is stand around asking to be killed. If you want to use a military unit to pacify an area, the only effective way of doing so would be with bloody ruthlessness purging just about everyone. Military units are not meant to be used as police.

There was a great line in a movie I saw a while ago that pretty well sums up what I mean - "The military is a broadsword, not a scalpel".

First of all, what is Posse Comitatus? It is from Latin for "possible force," the power of the sheriff to call upon any able- bodied adult men (and presumably women) in the county to assist him in apprehending a criminal. The assembled group is called a posse for short.

The Posse Comitatus was passed as a direct result of the reconstruction of the Southern states after the civil war. Basically, due to US Marshalls using Army troops for law enforcement without the authorization of the President
see http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm

For a better explanation in common English and not legalese, see the Washington University School of Law Law Quarterly at http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html

However, keep in mind that there has been more and more use of the Federal Forces in actions that are for civilian law enformcement, such as border security, etc. The Washington University article should answer all questions.

Vic

You´re kidding right? Both have totaly diferent views and objectives.

The military has the sole purpose of killing and destroying the enemy as quickly and eficiently as possible. The police task is to stop people from killing others, and only use mortal force in very few cases. Soldiers kill, police arrest.

A police officer has to think twice before pulling his gun, while the soldier is trained to kill anything that moves and looks funny.

Not to mention the training is totaly diferent, and training and equiping a professional soldier is more time consuming and costly.

Actually, here in Italy the Carabinieri (military police force) also double as normal police, and they follow the orders of the magistrates. No problem.

Any soldier trained to shoot first and think later is just cannon fodder, a warmonger's tool and the best excuse for terrorism - as demonstrated in Iraq etc.

I need to also ask about U.N peacekeepers, those are both soldiers and police officers that kind of meld together to 'keep the peace' without destroying the territory they are in, except for some cases where they are more problems then good.

I'm not advocating martial law, I was just wondering: What is the best reason for separating the military and the police? They seem to fulfill similar roles and separation only creates bureaucracy.

In other words, why is Posse Comitatus necessary?

The police exist to protect and serve their society. The military exists to fight the enemies of the state. When the military begins to police its own people, the citizens too often become the enemies of the state.

The military's job is to cause death. The police's job is to prevent death.

@ Freeunited states:that I have to agree with.

And to Tusco down there, you have a valid point. I went to the State Department the day before yesterday and that was actually brought up in a meeting I was in. If a country dosent want a peacekeeping mission to happen, the people going in just cause more problems than its worth and actually blow stuff up when they get the chance just to gain access. I'm sure there is some explanation to that but I see it as counter-productive rather than helping achieve an actual peace goal.

In the past, using soldiers for policing action, especially in riot situations, has often ended rather messily. See the 1848 revolutions for that.
Also, things like the Zabern Affair in 1913 demonstrated that the mixing of civilians and the military could be rather antagonistic: issues such as prostitution, army discipline, army requisitioning, jurisdictional authority, military arrogance, value of force over tact, locals vs. 'foreign' soldiers; these could be incendiary.

People just don't seem to like having armed soldiers garrisoning and policing them.

Aside from the other reasons given, one might point out that many states dont want the military to get too powerful.
Theres this little thing called a 'military coup', most people want to avoid it. Giving the military police authority has been shown to generally not be a good idea.Haiti and Bolivia.. do have separated Policed and Army.. in Bolivia's case they eve fought each other.. Yet these 2 countries have the World record of bloody Coups.

as a matter of fact.. I am sure 99% of Military-Coup Victim-countries had a separated police-Military.

If you want to prevent Dictatorship in your small Country.. you are better off following either the Costa Rica, Swiss or Venezuela Systems.

an awesome chance to quote battlestar galactica

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

Commander Adama

an awesome chance to quote battlestar galactica

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

Commander Adama

Actually, that's paraphrasing Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the London Metropolitan Police (it's from his name we get the term "Bobbies" for British cops, and the old slang "Peelers"). The "Met" was the first modern police force, and the above description explains one of the major reasons Peel founded it.

The military's job is to cause death. The police's job is to prevent death.
In theory.
In reality, through the formation SWAT-style teams which have adopted traditionally military tactics for use against civilians, the use of National Guard troops for holding the peace, and the deployment of international troops on humanity and peace keeping missions; the line between military and police has been rendered little more than a formality (at least in the US).
This has become especially clear in recent years, as our current leaders are attempting to increase the coordination between intelligence, martial and civil forces under the guise of stopping terrorism.
Personally, I'm in favor of the move, if only because it might help people remember that, no matter what their uniform, these people are government operatives, in place only to enforce that authority.

A military has tools that the police do not need.

The police have tools that are useless to the military.

The two jobs are vastly different and not compatible.

You´re kidding right? Both have totaly diferent views and objectives.

The military has the sole purpose of killing and destroying the enemy as quickly and eficiently as possible. The police task is to stop people from killing others, and only use mortal force in very few cases. Soldiers kill, police arrest.

A police officer has to think twice before pulling his gun, while the soldier is trained to kill anything that moves and looks funny.

Not to mention the training is totaly diferent, and training and equiping a professional soldier is more time consuming and costly.

I do agree, but I debate the idea that the only use a soldier has is to kill. They are involved in other things, like food/ supply rationing missions, rescue missions from disaster areas etc...

They have completely different approaches and methods in their training and operating procedures; you can't have them do both because they would have to sacrifice some of their effectiveness as one in order to do the other, with the result being that their ability to do police or military work is compromised and you end up with a less effective force overall.

Actually, here in Italy the Carabinieri (military police force) also double as normal police, and they follow the orders of the magistrates. No problem.

Any soldier trained to shoot first and think later is just cannon fodder, a warmonger's tool and the best excuse for terrorism - as demonstrated in Iraq etc.

I always imagined the Carabinieri as being like the French Gendarmerie and the American SWAT.

You know, rare, heavily armed, for those domestic situations that require such tools.

The two jobs are vastly different and not compatible.
The two jobs are actually the same, the projection of power into an area where it isn't wanted. When a government does so to its own civilians, we call the actions "policing" and when a government does so to another government's civilians, we call the actions "military." Police generally don't require the same amount of fire power as the military does, but that is just because the people that the police exist to combat are also less heavily armed.
At some point along the line, however, people started getting the idea that "policing" was about traffic cops who buy ice cream cones for lost children until their parents can pick them up. This is plainly not the case.

The two jobs are actually the same, the projection of power into an area where it isn't wanted. When a government does so to its own civilians, we call the actions "policing" and when a government does so to another government's civilians, we call the actions "military." Police generally don't require the same amount of fire power as the military does, but that is just because the people that the police exist to combat are also less heavily armed.
At some point along the line, however, people started getting the idea that "policing" was about traffic cops who buy ice cream cones for lost children until their parents can pick them up. This is plainly not the case.

The methods are vastly different, as are the intentions behind the actions.

Or, better put, would you honestly send a police offer to a warzone and would you honestly send a soldier to do the job of the police? If you had a choice that was, between sending either one in either situation.

Soldiers are trained to kill and destroy things,mostly other soldiers and their equipment with military force.

Police are trained to aprehend or protect civilians,with as much force necessary,but not too much.

These days, police need to have a law degree to function as well.

Actually, that's paraphrasing Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the London Metropolitan Police (it's from his name we get the term "Bobbies" for British cops, and the old slang "Peelers"). The "Met" was the first modern police force, and the above description explains one of the major reasons Peel founded it.

i'll take your word for it, a link for quotation purposes would be appreciated, i have to write essays on this kind of thing.

The US Posse Comitatus Act was passed after Reconstruction "to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement." There's been some loose talk that the 1876 Presidential election (Hayes-Tilden) ended up in the House of Representatives because Federal troops mishandled some ballots from Louisiana. I'm sure that's just idle rumor, no one in the UNited States would do that sort of thing.

The Insurrection Act, originally passed in 1807, was modified in 2006 by the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill to give the President broader powers in deploying the military in law enforcement roles (surprise, surprise). Senators Leahy (D) and Bond (R) introduced a bill in February that would revert the act to its original state.

European Gendarmeries combine both military and police functions and those countries are hardly dictatorships like some posters here seem to think will happen.

European Gendarmeries combine both military and police functions and those countries are hardly dictatorships like some posters here seem to think will happen.

They are used for police of OTHER countries and appropriately trained as such (kind of like MP's)

They are not designed for infinite length deployment in their OWN civilian centers.

Thats hardly the same as having military control in your own country.

I'm not advocating martial law, I was just wondering: What is the best reason for separating the military and the police? They seem to fulfill similar roles and separation only creates bureaucracy.

In other words, why is Posse Comitatus necessary?

Military: Serve the nation's foreign interests.

Police: Serve the nation's domestic interests.

The military are used to project power, or project the perception of power to other nations.

Police are used to resolve domestic issues, those within the nation.

European Gendarmeries combine both military and police functions and those countries are hardly dictatorships like some posters here seem to think will happen.

Consider the circumstances that led to the development of the gendarmerie, ie two world wars that resulted from the unchecked aggresion and expansion of military power. And also note that only some elements are combined, but several nations (France, Germany, most NATO members) maintain a separate military and police force.

i'll take your word for it, a link for quotation purposes would be appreciated, i have to write essays on this kind of thing.

I'll see if I can find one. The full quote is available in the Life of Sir Robert Peel, if you can find a copy.

I'm not advocating martial law, I was just wondering: What is the best reason for separating the military and the police? They seem to fulfill similar roles and separation only creates bureaucracy.

In other words, why is Posse Comitatus necessary?The best reason I can think of is that the two are trained quite differently.

That said, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are technically an arm of the Canadian Forces, so they are military.