Well, I have been looking at different nations and how they do their national defense.

Israel and some European countries.

I believe that the USA needs to really change the way it looks at defense.

Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement in my opinion should be further integrated with national defense. The Department of Defense should fall under the command of Law Enforcement during national or state emergencies.

The military has resources and equipment that could help law enforcement. However, the main issue is that the military is not trained to enforce the law but fight wars. Which is true? However, the current actions being taken in Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming more like law enforcement actions daily. In addition, some nations as if Italy has a Para-Military La Enforcement Agency and within the USA. The US Coast Guard takes law enforcement duties everyday. To the point that the when the US Navy is tasked with Drug Enforcement. US Coast Guardsmen are the ones that make the arrest.

Israel's police are also more Para-military. Many of their standard patrol officers (normal beat cop) carry a rifle with their sidearm. Most of the rifles are M1 Carbines. However, the fact that they do law enforcement task but also backup they the military for national defense.

Law Enforcement isn’t like what it was ten years ago. It has become more Para-military. Today’s criminal isn’t some petty crook. His armed with a high array of weapons. Rifles and Shotguns. In addition, to combat this, law enforcement has armed their officers with rifles and sub machine guns to keep in the car. In addition, the uniform of the police officer is becoming more like a combat uniform. Gone are the days of nice pressed shirt with shiny a leather belt, shined patent leather shoes, and polished badge. Today’s officer wears a Kevlar vest, tactical pants (BDUs), Polo shirt or T-shirt with the word police written on it or a badge embroidered into it, Nylon belt with a tactical holster, high power flash light, and an assortment of tactical equipment in the patrol car along with a rifle, carbine, or SMG. In addition, NBC gear with a Geiger counter. Hell, some cops are also being trained to a level of medical knowledge right below that of a EMT (Para-Medic). Lastly, most departments now have APCs and such to combat riots and terrorist actions. Also natural events like hurricanes too.

I am not saying that tanks should be on every street corner. However, I am saying that the military and law enforcement needs to work together. The current war on terror is being fought on the home front just has much as it is being fought on the battlefront.

I think that it needs to be reorganized to the point that the cadet programs like US Civil Air Patrol and JROTC should be further militarized. During WWII, CAP fought and sank German U-Boats. Why can’t the civil air patrol be armed now? Cadets around the age of 16-18 should be armed and do tasks such as base security.

Once again, Israel is my example. The Israeli Mash'az is another example. Local civilian defense should be done in every American town and city. Civilians should volunteer with local law enforcement and patrol the streets too. Much like the idea of the militia, but it would be well regulated and controlled by the government. The main reason that they would be armed is for self-defense.

As for the military in general. I think conscription is a good idea. Everyone at age 18 should do three years of service in the US Army or US Marines, and if they wish to go into the US Air Force or US Navy. They should do four years. Now if they volunteer. They’ll get a better selection of their MOS and place of station. Also better pay too. Lastly, it will teach the youth what honor, pride, and responsibility is.

Basically in the end, I think that an armed society is a safe society. You cannot live in a open society and be safe 100%. But if you show your enemy that your society is armed to the teeth and that is it hard as hell to attack and get away with it. It will lower the chances of your enemy attacking you.

Nature is the best example. When a dog shows his teeth and growls. The attacking animal will more than likely back down. America should do the same too.

I follow you on everything EXCEPT further integration of the military and LEO's. It makes my hair stand on end. Enforcement of laws and combat are two entirely different roles and although I agree with you that the reality for big city cops is that enforcement carries many similarities to combat a further blurring of that line is NOT good for civil liberties et al. I would be loathe point out the very different set of circumstances that have led Israel to blend its forces but the fact is the USA does not face an imminent threat of open combat with forces on the other side of a mere chain link fence.

Luis, you should review what is discussed in this thread:
Found it!
The Posse Comitatus Act prevents much of what you want to do.

Well, that's why I would put the military under law enforcement control. Posse Comitatus Act states that the military in it's own action cannot enforce the law of the land. But it doesn't state that the military cannot be commanded and controlled by law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus Act
Legislation


The relevant legislation is as follows:
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Exceptions

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include:

• National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
• Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
• The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;
• In December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.
• Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
• The United States Coast Guard is not affected by the act during peacetime.

Homeland Security


TITLE 6 CHAPTER 1 SUBCHAPTER VIII Part H Sec. 466. Congress finds the following:

1. Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a Posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
2. Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was expressly intended to prevent United States Marshals, on their own initiative, from calling on the Army for assistance in enforcing Federal law.
3. The Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law.
4. Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
5. Existing laws, including Title 10, Chapter 15 (commonly known as The Insurrection Act), and The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Title 42, Chapter 68), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Already the military has taken part in law enforcement.

Insurrection Act

The Insurrection Act is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.
The Act came to the fore when President Bush appeared reluctant to deploy federal troops to New Orleans because of restraints imposed under this Act to quash lawlessness and looting following Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005.[1]
[edit]

US Code

he US Code (10USC331-335) reads: § 331. Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
§ 334. Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
§ 335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as “State”
For purposes of this chapter, the term “State” includes the unincorporated territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of the military being used in a law enforcement role. I'm not stating that the Army should be doing law enforcement 24/7 but that the military should take a more actibe role in American defense.

The Military should defend our borders. And when i say defend. I mean actaully patrol them with US Cumstoms & Border Protection agents. Our military is current;y deployed overseas fighting three wars.

1) War on Terror
2) Afghanistan
3) Iraq

No other nation to my knowledge deploys it's armed forces the way the USA does. I don't hear much about Germany having bases in Asia. Or Brazil haing a airbase in England. The USA is the only one with bases all around the world in foriegn countries. Most other nations have their military forces station within their borders. America is the opposite.

Our service members that are state side should take a more active role in defending this nation. I'm not saying that they aren't defending it. But I am saying that more can be done. Manpower is an issue. Hence why I mentioned conscription. That sovles that issue right there.

Also, society in general should get off their lazy and help defend this nation. The Israelis have it though, but it will come soon to the USA and other nations. trust me, it will happen.

And if we wish to keep our society free. I think we need to look to our allies and also our own past.

During WWII, the USA was truly on a war footing. It was killed or be killed in terms of how society looked at it and I think that society needs to look at the current situation like that too.

It's us or them and I'll rather it be them.

556,
I see your points, they are very logical, but I was thinking about the Little Rock Nine where federal troops were sent to intervene with the NG, and couldn't help but ponder what would have happened if the two branches were under the same umbrella. I know, this situation is totally bassackwards from your concerns, but I think the potential for a totalitarian takeover is present, under the guise of "protection" and "security."

As much as it may pain me and others to hear, we need liberals, the ACLU, and those who would oppose the system to call for all that noise they yell about.

Another concern I have with militarizing law enforcement stems from a conversation with an LEO buddy of mine about why they don't equip themselves for high risk encounters. He said that the psychological aspect of a clean, professional looking enforcer calms [law abiding] folks, and that the militaristic load out of the SWAT guys would scare people into thinking something is wrong, and that it is not safe to go outside. That is the effect the SWAT guys WANT to project, that when you see men with big toys, don't go outside.


I digress. It is interesting that Europe's most liberal nations have mandatory service for men at a certain age and health, which to me is remarkable, but then again these are small countries with almost no hard line foreign policy (and no means to enforce such a policy). To them, deploying is a non-issue; their countries aren't willing to send their troops anywhere, and neither is their people. If we end up with a mindset like that, conscription would be at least plausible. I'm sure members of this board who are citizens in said countries could expand or correct me on this issue.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

You cannot live in a open society and be safe 100%.

True, but what is the cost for security? Ben Franklin once said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Take, for example, the Reichstag Fire in Germany (1933), and how that enabled the then-Chancellor Adolf Hitler to seize power from the people without a whisper of sedition. Why wasn't there a civil war? Hitler, being a charismatic speaker, illicited fear from the people about the commie pukes who burned down the central government building, and quickly passed the Enabling Act to allow liberties to be taken away and securty emplaced. He had an ulterior motive, and thus the invasion of Poland sparked WWII. Think how this situation parallels what we are facing today (and have faced in the past 5 years), and how a Nazi-esque society was averted.

I should really stop drinking 20oz Seattle's Best white chocolate mochas at 0200.

I'm just going to hit the highlights and hopefully come back later with more:

Military and Law Enforcement are two different worlds. DoD under the command of civilian cops? I'd move to Canada.

What we're doing in Iraq is nothing like a civilian cop does his job CONUS.

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of the military being used in a law enforcement role. I'm not stating that the Army should be doing law enforcement 24/7 but that the military should take a more actibe role in American defense.

Active military was not used at LE.

Hell, some cops are also being trained to a level of medical knowledge right below that of a EMT (Para-Medic).

There are three levels of EMT. EMT-P, or paramedic is the highest. Many departments are requiring officers to become First Responders, which is still below EMT-Basic, so they aren't right below EMT-P in trauma care and knowledge. Fire Departments are not long in getting their Firefighters certified as First Responders as well. Some departments are, however training EMT-B, I and Ps as tactical medics to assist in SWAT operations.

The Military should defend our borders. And when i say defend. I mean actaully patrol them with US Cumstoms & Border Protection agents. Our military is current;y deployed overseas fighting three wars.

1) War on Terror
2) Afghanistan
3) Iraq

Afghanistan and Iraq fall under the Global War on Terror. There are more than two "fronts" (Iraq and Afghanistan) in the GWOT, though.

The whole idea is just a little too fascist for me, I'm afraid. It's knee jerk, and while we should share intel with each other, there's no reason to go overboard with trying to blur the line between LE and military.

Originally Posted by Maytime

I digress. It is interesting that Europe's most liberal nations have mandatory service for men at a certain age and health, which to me is remarkable, but then again these are small countries with almost no hard line foreign policy (and no means to enforce such a policy). To them, deploying is a non-issue; their countries aren't willing to send their troops anywhere, and neither is their people. If we end up with a mindset like that, conscription would be at least plausible. I'm sure members of this board who are citizens in said countries could expand or correct me on this issue.

This disappoints me! If there is one thing we Scandinavians are willing to do then it is to go boldly with our fellow allies where it is nescessary. We cannot contribute in large scale such as Germany, England and France, but our contribution and support will always be present!

Conscription works in Norway and many soldiers are continuing their military service either at combat school or in international operations abroad when their conscription service is over - we develop many fine and good soldiers with good knowledge of handling conflicts and for us it is legal to say the conscription system is the militarys number one recruitment channel for officers and soldiers on contract in our few, but indeed competent, professional units.

We are only 4.5 million people on this little rock up in the north, but we enter the show when we are needed!

Absolutely correct on that Sunb.

5.56 I see what you mean with the Police.
Colombian National Police.



Armed and ready to go from a kids stolen bike to a rebel assault.