Please excuse the long title.
I am doing some research on SSTR and have a question regarding using U.S. MPs in a law enforcement roll outside the US. I have been told that there is a federal restriction on using MPs in such a roll. Does anyone know if this it true and where the restriction originates from?
Thanks
I trust from the "outside the US" precision in your inquiry that you are are aware of Posse Commitatus and are looking for something else.
I'm curious, outside the US, which laws are we talking about enforcing? The jurisdictional issues would seem to be ripe for "restrictions," whether to MPs or other LEOs.
Not my specialty, but I'll be bumping into some MPs tomorrow (hopefully not before then :wry:), and will try to remember to ask and post what I find.
In a non-war zone, the MP roles as in the case of all other US forces are set under the staus of forces agreement.
In a war zone, US forces are also subject to a SOFA, depending on the type of conflict. Tht can range from out right martial law with full powers as in a contabulary on down to more traditional roles.
Not a lawyer and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night so you need to check much further
Best
Tom
My interest is primarily in contabulary operations in a conflict - post-conflict (phase III-IV) environments. I have seen several reports (i.e. "U.S. Police in Peace and Stability Operations" http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr191.html) that advocate using civilian police in this roll, but never any discussion of using MPs. I asked an MP firend and he told me that there were legal restrictions. From what I can find, there is none (other than SOFA).
I am guessing that it is an institutional mindset that keeps MPs from engaging in these operations unless forced to.
Don't know about the States, but the term "legal restrictions" is frequently used here to include bureaucratic regulations, so that might be what he is referring to - trickle-down "laws". Just a thought, but you might want to look into specific MP regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
ps. Have you looked at the recently signed bi-lateral agreement between NORTHCOM and CANADACOM?
To the best of my knowledge and experience (in Post Conflict Panama and the training mission in El Salvador), other than the SOFA, restictions involve training of local police under Section 660 D of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended. Under that provision, US military forces are prohibited from training local police without a specific waiver. That waiver was forthcoming in El Salvador but not in Panama. However, under international law, forces occupying a country (de jure or de facto) are required to provide law and order, among other things like food, water, medecine, sanitation, and government. Panama was a case of de facto occupation. Initially, infantry from the 193rd brigade policed Panama's streets. (I well remember the brigade commander, COL Mike Snell, urging me to get Panama's prison and night courts up and running so he could get his troops out of the policing business! :wry:) Later, we had MPs conducting joint patrols with the newly raised Panama National Police and we (US forces) conducted the initial training program for them. We were soon told that 660 D applied and that PNP training was the responsibility of the DOJ ICITAP (International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program). Since ICITAP had trouble getting off the ground we were permitted/encouraged by Ambassador Deane Hinton to continue to "monitor and advise" the PNP. This became a SF job - both AC and RC (the RC SF were cops in civilian life and were paired with AC SF teams). More can be found in my April 1992 SSI monograph, "The Fog of Peace: Planning and Executing the reconstruction of Panama" also published by Praeger as the first part of CIVIL MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE NEW WORLD in 1997.
Cheers
JohnT
What the exact restrictions are I don't know, but I do know they were used pretty extensively in the fairly recent Haiti operations.
John,
Thanks, exactly the type of thing I was looking for. Looked up the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and it appears that it does not restrict money to be used for police training in a post-conflict environment. Knew about ICITAP but they seem very small and underfunded, although a great resource.
that many restrictions in Haiti were self-imposed by senior military leadership that didn't want to do policing. Very common response - read Tommy Franks' memoirs where he is happy to have dodged the bullet of responsibility for Phase IV.
Carmudgeon, ICITAP, sadly has always had problems, The biggest is that it was an FBI creation - an investigative training agency - not a police training agency. It also had major internal bureaucratic problems according to a former colleague of mine who worked in DOJ and with ICITAP for a number of years.
We, as a nation, are not well equipped for police training and organizational development. The big problem is that we have no national police comparable to that of most Western nation-states. The best force to have taken charge of police organization and training in Panama that actually offered to do so (the only one that made the offer) was the Georgia State Police - at least they resembled a national police force. Slap can comment on their quality and speculate on how good or bad they might have been. In any event, the offer was refused.:(
JohnT aka 660 D :eek:
On a related note, I have a friend who is headed to a MTT. He was talking to some of his Cav friends who have returned from recent MTT assignments and found out that they are using anyone/everyone for police training in Iraq, not MPs. Sometimes what we do makes no sense.
This is a good reason to establish the MP branch to design and field a force capable of performing and training for this Gendarmeria-type force mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
JMHO
It's the American way... :wry:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Wow! looking at the picture U.S. Army North HQ must be aufully austere.Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
PS Sorry I have not been in touch lately. Still working on my short book. Reading Earle "Bronze Age Economics" and Greenfeld "The Spirit of Capitalism" to get a feeling of how econimics plays into a nation's choice of political insitutions.
How did your presentation go?
I bow to thee, John T. Excellent info.
Pardon my earlier, my head was in Phase 0 ops, beyond SOFA which clearly applies when it exists.
MPs may be the closest thing to law enforcement we've got, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should, or it is feasible to, slap the police training role on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
To what degree do you think that that institutional "mindset" restricting employment may really be confounded with a recognition of:
- the practical issues of the significant difference in the civilian law enforcement specialty vs. MP (esp in investigations, informants, police intel, etc.)
- on top of MPs already being a high demand, low density asset for stick-to-your-knitting employment?
In my personal peripheral observation of the RC / AC mixes such as that referenced here, the large delta between an MP and a cop has been reinforced. And the infusion of that civilian police experience has been a major force multiplier as the MPs extend into roles less core to their MOS.
Despite its value, some see that as a "cheat" of the system: flooding reserve police in through a mobilization back door as a way to prop up a less-viable-than-it-looks MP-based strategy. Or a validation that the main effort needs to be DOJ enabled and driven to do it "right, though clearly w/ massive DOD participation. ICITAP woes notwithstanding.
Insert your favorite Goldwater-Nichols II rant here, followed by realistic observations of scope, scale, etc. for any non-DOD agency.
By all means, the AC / RC mix is a tool we must use. With eyes wide open for its strengths and limitations.
If we're ever going to be "between wars" again, what will we do with all that gendarmerie? And if we aren't going to be between wars for a long while in the Long War, then maybe GS needs to start to stand for Go Somewhere.
Shallow thoughts presented sophomorically on a sunny day. Now off to work on taxes and more SWJ articles. Hasta...
Undoubtedly someone might get the (possibly correct) idea that the Gendarmerie should be on the Mexican Border. A very different environment from COIN and FID, but one that would not be lacking for all manner of paramilitary and "robust" LE missions and tasks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
The trouble with that is, a Gendarmerie might find itself in too much demand on said border, and be unavailable for major overseas deployments.
Have you read The Emergence of Civilization by Maisels or The Great Wave by Fischer? They both get into that, albeit it with a longue duree time horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Pretty good on the whole, but I wish we had had more of an opportunity to chat over beers :wry:.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
I don't believe that it is, but even so, it is better than using Armor or Artillery officers to train the Iraqi Police.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
Having been a Garrison MP (seven years) including two as MPI and having worked with civilian criminal law (defense atrtorney) I have seen very little real difference except experience. This isn't to say that your average MP is on par with a NYC Cop, but most police officers are from small, rural departments who get almos no training after graduation from the academy. If you train for the mission you can do it in the same way you train the infantry for war without actually having a training war going on all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
Being in high demand does not always equate to using them in the most efficent manner.
I will agree that my preference would be to use reserve/guard MPs whose civilian job is as a police officer. This is particularly true with MTT teams. However, no one else seems to think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
For the forseeable future, I don't see that as a problem. In most states gendarmerie police simply perform normal police functions, so they could rotate in and out of garrison police functions now being performed by civilian contractors on most posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWCAdmin
I don't think your thoughts are shallow, I just think that the mission could be done once someone decided to do it.
In actuallity, the problem of doing anying more than very simplistic law enforcment functions would be complicated greatly by language and cultural barriers, so the force would need to be limited in scope to what is immediately required to perserve order. In addition, it would have to be backed by a cout/prison system that could handle what it took in. So in fact, it is very complicated, but not impossible. The questions is do we need to take this on as part of SSTR or are we going to keep denying the need and hope this COIN fad just fades away.
Exempting the FBI who should be left alone; they have enough they won't be able to do. Cops can't catch terrorists because Cops play too nice and have a follow the law mindset -- that is a good thing -- gotta set a thief to catch a thief. Cops can train people to look for terrs; then the trainees will figure out the rest of it...Amen to that...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
And that.Quote:
...If you train for the mission you can do it in the same way you train the infantry for war without actually having a training war going on all the time.
That, too...Quote:
Being in high demand does not always equate to using them in the most efficent manner.
However, gotta disagree on that one -- I think the same way, and I know others do as well. It is not the best option but it is the best achievable and the cheapest option (cheap in more than just the cost aspect).Quote:
I will agree that my preference would be to use reserve/guard MPs whose civilian job is as a police officer. This is particularly true with MTT teams. However, no one else seems to think that way.
True, he exresses valid concerns but the alternatives are not good -- we've tried most and the just do not work. Or we can dither and stew about it for a few years while doing nothing. That, too is the American way... :DQuote:
I don't think your thoughts are shallow, I just think that the mission could be done once someone decided to do it.
No, but I just ordered both of them. I am trying to get as much backround information as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
Ahhhhh Master, you are wise beyond your years...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken White