2006-08-03 22:02:29 · 13 answers · asked by STEVE0 THE CLOWN 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Deploying overseas is what the military does. Fighting is what the military does. We train for it, we prepare for it, and then we do it. As we like saying, ours is not the reason why, but to do and cry.
As for the military taking on police duties, I know that Canadian law doesn't allow for it unless a state of emergency has been declared and the military has been formally asked to provide law enforcement. I am pretty sure that the same applies to the US. But something that all military personnel agree to is that soldiers aren't cops. It's not our job to deal with criminals back home. And besides if soldiers are trained only for heavily armed police work, they will be massacred if they ever deploy again to a location where there is heavy fighting.
As for the crimes being laid at the feet of whole militaries, back off. Those are the actions of a very small minority within the organization and they should be dealt with to the fullest extent of military and civilian laws.
2006-08-03 22:37:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our Military should be used to keep the country safe. That being said, I'd like to draw your attention to the Posse Comitatus Act, passed shortly after the end of Reconstruction in 1878. This prevents the United States Department of Defense from engaging in law enforcement roles within the US. That being said, The Insurrection Act does allow the President to use Federal Troops during emergencies, insurrection, or rebellion. The example I like to use most is when President Eisenhower used the 101st Airborne to force the State of Alabama to comply with a Supreme Court ruling (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education). So, to answer your question, do you feel that gang and crime problem is a law enforcement issue, or is it a direct challenge to the Federal Government? I, for one, feel that it is a law enforcement issue, mainly caused by a lack of education, and economic oppertunties in many of our inner cities.
2006-08-04 07:20:06 · answer #2 · answered by DCVIPER6969 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Steve look up the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law () passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. ... or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit ...
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.
2006-08-04 05:35:17 · answer #3 · answered by Snake Doc 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Joe S has given you the exact answer. It is against for US military to have law enfrocement powers except in very specific circumstances. For an example, Serria Army Depot NW of Reno NV, in California, the base Commander serves as the "mayor" as there is no support community immediately close by. But all his people can do is arrest and detain for US Marshalls to come and transport the person to civilian custody.
2006-08-12 04:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by auhunter04 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not our Military's job to battle crime and gangs at home, that's what we have police for. If these men and women wanted to be cops and arrest gang members and drug dealers, they would have joined the Police Academy, and not went to Boot-Camp for months to prepare them for Military life.
2006-08-04 05:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by Naples_6 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The military's role is not crime prevention. It is a totally different mission. Besides we get backlash when we just want to deploy them in administrative roles, (unarmed) on our Southern border to deal with the Illegal Immigration problem.
Would you really stand for armed Soldiers and Marines at checkpoints around America searching for contraband, or serving warrants?
2006-08-04 05:33:13 · answer #6 · answered by electricpole 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I think Rangerbob has communistic one party tendancies, he is right about keeping the military seperate from law enforcement. I am still confused about why were even over there. Something about well the bad guy died right away and all his buddies ran away and we have all these peacekeepers here, lets go visit Saddam. Then he dissappeared and were making their army into their policeforce? Has anybody thought about impeachment for stupidity reasons?
2006-08-04 05:41:46 · answer #7 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't listen to that idiot, Sniper. He has NO CLUE. Our servicemen (in general) are not doing that to the civilians over there, you dumb a$$. Sure...there are a couple of idiots that are losing their minds, but they are getting tried and punished for it.
I really hate it when you liberal, anti-war coward a$$ fa**ots talk **** about our servicemen/women like that. We are doing a job that you would otherwide be way too afraid to do. You just hide behind your liberal views.
So shut the hell up!
Whoops! that wasn't meant for you, dude.
To answer your question...we should draft the damn gang-bangers and put them over there to do some good for the US.
2006-08-04 05:24:55 · answer #8 · answered by RangerBob 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
overseas, we have cops ,highway patrol sheriffs dept. to serve the citizens here at home. if they would get off their butts and do it.
2006-08-11 11:11:47 · answer #9 · answered by duc602 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you think you want Martial Law !
Troops on the streets instead of police ?
Full and immediate Military control of everything ?
Is your name Castro ,or are you just stupid ?
2006-08-04 05:39:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋