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
possessed, I'd say the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying is more appropriate; "Ve are too zoon oldt und too late schmart..." :o
a long way while I was out riding my mare - Gracie is the grandneice of Secretariat on her sire's side. :D
2 points:
1. In Panama, we used RC SF who were civilian cops - called em RC Cops - and teamed them with AC SF teams for 30 days. A new RC Cop team would come in for 30 days but the AC SF team would remain. With each RC Cop from a different police department the AC SF would have at least 4 different police SOPs to observe. By the end of the second iteration the AC SF were damned good police/police trainers - and FID is a 7th SFG specialty. Weakness was that the RC Cops were were limited to RC SF and MPs were not included.
2. John Nagl was here in OK last week at our Dilemmas of Global Security Symposium. While we didn't get into police training by US military his BN - 1/34 Armor - is charged with training trainers for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Key is that these guys are not SF. Point is that good soldiers can adapt and are capable of designing and executing training programs. Indeed, the first Panama police training course - the 20 hour course - was designed by then Major Richard Downie, an infantryman and FAO. Rich later worked with the Italian Carabinieri in former Yugoslavia before he took over the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation as its first Commandant. Had a bunch of police in his classes, Now, as civilian Director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, he educates civilians, soldiers, NGO types, etc, including civilian cops from the Latin American and Caribbean region.
All in all, the Long War is going to require a remarkable degree of adaptability on the part of soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and civilians alike and we should think out of the box enough to be willing to seriously consider using state police who have a constabulary/gendarmerie type role. there really is enough work for everyone who wants it.:cool:
Cheers
JohnT
Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Georgia State Police Units(except for the GBI Investigations unit) do not do much of what is called police work....they deal mostly with traffic, nothing wrong with that, it just isn't what you would want. Tom Odom posted an interesting experience with them on another thread. You need good street cops and detectives nothing fancy.
Three times I've worked up a post along these lines, but I know that it would only piss off the entirety of law enforcement and military so I censor myself. Suffice it to say the military should do it's job and not try and get into civilian law enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Once again, that leaves us with the problem of how to get good police training for national police forces without (1) denuding active departments, (2) outsourcing to the private sector, and (3) achieving consistency of quality and SOPs among the police trainers.Each local department has its own rules and ways of doing business.
We could, of course, let the RCMP, Carabinieri, French Gendarmerie, or Chilean Carabineros take on the job. But what if we have to do it? who do we do it with and how best to make them (whoever They are) part of the mission under the same command?
Cheers
JohnT
PS the police advisor in el Salvador was an MP Major:)
First, I think there are a number of CID agents who would take issue with that comment. Second, MPs do the equivelant of civilian law enforcement for the military (or at least they used to). I have conducted investigations and apprehended military and civilian alike. The only difference was I got to go to court with the civilans and (on occasion) courtsmartial with the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
First you changed the scope from military police to much more specialized CID agents... A long walk from the beat cop still. Second because you or I or anybody else has done it does not make it right or even legal. I stand by my comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
I'll grant you that, but it shows that the capability is there. Where do you think most of those CID agents started? Most were recruited from MPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Well I am sure it was legal as we were standing in front of a federal judge. If it wasn't than I think he would have thrown us out on our butt. I think many people misunderstand what MPs are legally capable of, particularly on a military instillation where there is concurrent federal jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
But don't stop arguing with me just cause I disagree. My idea is just one method. If you have a better solution to civil stabilization concurrent with military operations I am always interested in other thoughts.
The capability is not there. Law enforcement is much more than force, and and more importantly MP's are trained to deal with a homogeneous population and the civilian world is a heterogeneous population.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
MP's have limited skills in civilian law enforcement, and CID agents are non-scalable. Civilian law enforcement is done by civilians. If the problem is not enough police on foreign soil then fix that problem. Don't just expand the mission or tactical envelope.
Whether you were standing in front of a judge or not doesn't necessarily make it legal. The law as a concrete set of rules is a legal fiction. As an example since the inception of the Patriot Act (and associated prosecutions) it has been continuously disassembled in the court system. This is an example of the issues between military and civilian law enforcement. The current para-militarization of the civilian law enforcement eloquently exposes many of the problems (including 1 in 100 people in America are incarcerated or under court mandated supervision).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
A host of court cases from Miranda to Terry to Oliphant and on and on have shown that police actions within policy are not necessarily legal.
As to solving the problem of not enough police on foreign soil. Law enforcement can only be effective when it is seen to be functioning as part of a legitimate government entity.
You said a lot there. In Alabama and a lot of other states if you held the LE designation in an MP unit you can become a POST certified police officer by attending a 2 week lateral transfer school because the MP academy is almost identical to a regular civilian police academy in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Slap you've walked in both set's of shoes. Do you think the population/issues/enforcement mechanisms are that similar that you'd be able to just use any MP as a civilian law enforcement agent? Then again can you ramp up LE designated MP's that fast (didn't even know they differentiated). The next issue that comes up is that our law enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly western civilization centric. So now you're talking about training and enculturation. Moving from hilltop to dark town could ruin the best cop what about Jacksonville to Baghdad?Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Guess it depends on the perspective. Given a unit in a combat environment, yes, true. Given a typical state side or overseas post or base with more dependents than troops and a slew of Civilian employees, not so much. Post MPs get as many domestics as do city cops -- maybe more...Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
They get the full gamut of civilian law enforcement issues and the population they serve is not nearly as homogeneous as many think. Neither are the crimes. I've seen MPs and / or the CID deal with everything from auto theft to rape to embezzlement to homicide, suicide and incest -- and most things in between and involving civilian employees of contractors, males, females and kids, troops, visitors on post, traveling salesmen and Pizza delivery drivers.
Most Posts and Bases are a fairly accurate reflection of an American city and most crimes are handled by delivery to the local criminal courts or to a Federal Magistrate -- wherein the MPs get to testify just as do my two sons who are city cops today (and they have the same problems with the Attorneys -- both sides).Limited with respect to young initial entry MPs, not true with respect to those who've been around a few years. The CID folks are surprisingly well rounded and tend to work more white collar and general crim stuff than many would think.Quote:
MP's have limited skills in civilian law enforcement, and CID agents are non-scalable...
Agreed, the issue is how you get that expansion going, not applying US MPs to it.Quote:
...Civilian law enforcement is done by civilians. If the problem is not enough police on foreign soil then fix that problem. Don't just expand the mission or tactical envelope.
Agree also with that -- but again, it doesn't answer the problem of training a host nation's police and / or para military police to do their jobs which is the issue on the thread. We do not need para military police here and IMO, the SWAT-ization is vastly overdone; other nations may not be that fortunate.Quote:
Whether you were standing in front of a judge or not doesn't necessarily make it legal. The law as a concrete set of rules is a legal fiction. As an example since the inception of the Patriot Act (and associated prosecutions) it has been continuously disassembled in the court system. This is an example of the issues between military and civilian law enforcement. The current para-militarization of the civilian law enforcement eloquently exposes many of the problems (including 1 in 100 people in America are incarcerated or under court mandated supervision).
Also true -- again, the problem is how you get there...Quote:
A host of court cases from Miranda to Terry to Oliphant and on and on have shown that police actions within policy are not necessarily legal.
As to solving the problem of not enough police on foreign soil. Law enforcement can only be effective when it is seen to be functioning as part of a legitimate government entity.
Ken, I have a post I'm holding in abeyance as it strikes across this thread and also the thread from Rob Thorton. I'm sitting on it out of respect to the rest of you it is darn near journal length but not very well thought out yet. The key piece though is that you can't possibly enact MP's as law enforcement on a foreign land as they won't have proper culture, tools, or understanding (maybe my reasons might be off but I think the issues are valid). The second thrust is that government must be legitimate to enforce laws with any hope of the actions not being corrupted. Since we're talking about COIN (my thoughts anyways) the legitimacy of the government is already in doubt by the populace. What we think is legitimate has little to do with the problem.
As to solving it the problem is a "chicken and the egg" conundrum. You need law enforcement to be a legitimate government and you must be a legitimate government to have lawful enforcement.
Personally I'm highly invested in the concept of separation of powers (<- Illuminating my own bias in a fit of honesty).
I'm thinking about it further and I think the keys are found in the repair and resumption of police powers by agencies after horrific civil disturbances during the civil rights movement. In that you had law enforcement (inequitable to be sure) and the legitimacy of that was torn down by insurgents (civil rights movement demonstrators), and the actual structures of government had to change and adapt to the new paradigm.
How did law enforcement succeed in those situations? It wasn't just a "Mongolian horde effect" of throwing bodies at the problem. The structures were in place but had to be repaired and franchised (accepted) by the people.
I'll have to think about it some more.
with only the caveat that in a pure occupation, you have to use them for that; other than that for all the reasons you cite and more it has to be an absolute no-no.Quote:
"The key piece though is that you can't possibly enact MP's as law enforcement on a foreign land as they won't have proper culture, tools, or understanding (maybe my reasons might be off but I think the issues are valid).
The thread was started with the question of using US MPs for law enforcement on foreign soil -- maybe I missed something but unless it is a pure occupation (which Iraq was not, even if the US Government foolishly said it was no matter how briefly) it is a totally bad idea and bound to be illegal unless there is, as Tom Said, a SOFA which defines the (generally very narrow) scope wherein MPs may operate. I sorta thought the consensus was that it shouldn't be done and that John capped that with the references and his comment on the issue.
The thread morphed -- my fault -- into using select Guard and Reserve MP units specifically to train host nation paramilitary elements. I specifically used Guard and Reserve because those units are full of working Cops. I also said that the elements they trained should be the paramilitary internal security folks -- NOT the civil cops, those should devolve to US Aid and contractors -- as is being done now by MPRI and DynCorp (LINK), both of whom want civilian cops with full Academy training and generally five or more years street or road experience and fully certified (to include extra certifications like fire arms instructor etc.) and they generally exclude MP service from consideration.
I also agree that the government concerned must be legitimate but, as you said, if we're talking COIN that may (or may not) be a problem.
Looking forward to your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Hi Sam, I don't know when the MP's started the separate MOS idea, they didn't do that when I was in. Now days to transfer you have to be a 31B or 31E or something like that. From my understanding there is a correctional type MOS and a Physical Security type MOS type that would not be allowed to transfer without going to the full academy.
I have worked with and know a few transfers from the MP's and they worked out great.....but just like every rookie they had to spend a year on the street with a training officer before they were turned loose and as you know that year is where you really learn how to be a cop.
Completely agree about the cultural and language differences, but that is true regardless of your MOS...you have to understand the people. And what is the Law and how are you going to explain it to the target population is the critical foundation. We talk about this on Rob Thornton's similar thread.
I am looking forward to your post to, just let fly.
I think it would be beneficial if I explain the situations the question was based on.
1. US military in a legally constituted foreign country (COIN or non-COIN.
a. Control of use of any force = SOFA
b. FID Training per agreement between nations
2. US military in interdiction/invasion to restore legally constituted foreign country
a. Control of use of any force = SOFA
b. FID Training per agreement between nations
3. US military in invasion to effect regime change
a. MPs used to provide enforcement of civil order as apposed to using the Infantry.
b. FID Police Training conducted by MPs until the situation is stable enough to allow NGO/IGO support.
4. US military in invasion into ungoverned territory.
a. MPs used to provide enforcement of civil order as apposed to using the Infantry.
b. FID Police Training conducted by MPs until the situation is stable enough to allow NGO/IGO support.
The bottom line is that MPs are trained for LE and can be trained to deal with the cultural differences. The option is having the Infantry "be creative" and throw civilians into reservoirs for curfew violations or Armor guys crushing civilians car with an M1 for looting wood. It is a matter of damage control. If it is going to happen which force is capable of causing the minimum damage – who is trained for this mission.
nearly always SF in the FID role. The problem comes when there are not enough SF or the SF do not have the specialized skills required - or both. In that case, there was a concept from the 60s and 70s called the SAF - later modified to a FID Augmentation Force (FIDAF) that provides an appropriate organizational structure. Essentially, it would integrated SF and MPs for LE training sort of a modification of what was done by MILGP El Sal and the RC Cops in Panama. How this would be put together requires adapability and imagination.
Cheers
JohnT
Absolutely agree. SF should do this mission with augmentation when they feel they need it. Unfortunately, that is not the current reality. If we are going to have to cut corners, I think I would prefer to do it with the forces best suited for the mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
The only thing I would add is a couple of SF to the MP training team, if possible. That way the SF would be a training multiplier to paraphrase the common usage.
Just one example, and it's Vietnam era information, but an interesting article none the less:
http://www.mrfa2.org/MP.htm
To all,Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
I happened upon this thread while doing research for an upcoming conference paper on regional police development efforts. I was the US police development advisor there (State/INL) from '03 to '07. I'm also working on a book that chronicles Panamanian policing from its independence through the Just Cause invasion - up to the present date.
To John Fischel, I'd like to contact you off-board regarding your experiences in Panama post-invasion, if you're amenable. For confirmation and contact purposes, email address is dsg@miamibostongroup.com and website is miamibostongroup.com.
Best to all and my apologies for hijacking the thread.