4 ms·
It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to
by CydeWeys 6y ago
It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing.
Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.
- kelnos 6y ago> Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. (If you meant something else by "troops", please choose your words more carefully.) I have zero confidence that, with such a force on standby all the time, departments will resist using that force for more mundane matters until it becomes routine. > They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7. Would "military-level policing" have actually helped in any of these terrorist attacks? I fail to see how a tricked-out army would have stopped 9/11. I did a quick search for "terrorist attacks in washington dc", and nothing really came up, except for some theoretical worries and a few foiled plots, which clearly did not need "military-level policing" to deal with. I'm really tired of how "oh my, terrorists!" is used as an excuse for domestic militarization and draconian domestic policy. The threat of terrorism in the US is hugely overblown, and traditional policing at the local and federal level is what we need to handle these sorts of things, by catching them during the planning phases. And with most terrorist attacks, if you get to a point where there's an active attack, it's too late to do all that much that's meaningful, and bringing in militarized units has just as much potential to make the situation worse. Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough to warrant militarized police on call 24/7.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. In what sense are the police not military?
- ceejayoz 6y agoPolice exist (in theory) to enforce law. The military does not. Edge cases like MPs and the Coast Guard exist, and some countries blur the line more than others. The Paris fire department, for example, is a military branch for historical reasons.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThe military also exists to enforce law. The police are in exactly the same business as the military, enforcing compliance through violence. Using a different word doesn't make them a different thing.
- tomnipotent 6y ago> The military also exists to enforce law. No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. The rare exemption is when a state decides to deploy the Army National Guard or Coast Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act is very specific about this, and the U.S. Army Military Police Corps were slapped with administrative actions for violating the act when they intervened in murder spree in Alabama.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else. What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the police belong in this category too; there isn't a difference. Saying the police are not military purely because they wear a label saying "the third amendment doesn't apply to us, for reasons that will make sense if we beat you enough" would be the same error as saying that a newspaper didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" if it published online (and therefore didn't use a printing press). Actually, it would be more like saying that the New York Times didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" because they're "the Times", not "the press".
- tekknik 6y agoSo then these centers will be known and avoided by terrorists.