5 ms·

> military forces exist to protect the country from existential threats — such as an invasion or rebellion — not to enforce the law. serious question: are Cou

by kpw94 1y ago

> military forces exist to protect the country from existential threats — such as an invasion or rebellion — not to enforce the law. serious question: are Countries such as Italy, France etc not a democracy? All of them are, verbatim from wikipedia, "a military force with law enforcement duties among the civilian population.". Ditto for spain Guardia Civil, and many of the countries listed in that same wiki page: Algeria, Netherlands, Poland, Argentina, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, Chile, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> serious question: are Countries such as Italy, France etc not a democracy? They are, but not in the the "framework of US constitutional democracy." A system for which we have more evidence of stability than either of Italy or France's modern republics. (Note, too, les gendarmes' heritage: imperial France. Also, gendarmes aren't usually deployed overseas. They are, in a sense, more similar to the FBI than the U.S. Marines.)
- gabaix 1y ago
  I have always found confusing the existence of the gendarmes. They are indeed a vestigial force of the XIXth century, and should be transformed into a regular police force.
  - aredox 1y ago
    On the contrary, they are more relevant than ever in today's era of peacekeeping and anti-terrorism activities. They are fundamental to the stabilisation of the Balkans, for example. They fill the gap between full war and "normal" (punctual) criminality.
    - gabaix 1y ago
      The issues are two-fold 1- the territorial split between gendarmerie/police within the French territory 2- the fact the gendarmes for police work report to the Ministry of Defense. If one had to design the police system from crash, they would likely merge police and gendarmes for police work.
      - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
        You forgot 3: a hatred between the organizations for ego reasons (not everyone, not everywhere). The split is nonsense today.
forty 1y ago
Gendarmerie are simply policemen with a military status which give them some duty (like I think they cannot strike) and some benefits (earlier retirement) but they are still really a police force in reality. I don't think it would look good to send actual army to fight citizens, and I don't think the army would appreciate it either (it might have been done already, no idea)
- closewith 1y ago
  That is not universally true. A Gendarmerie is literally a military force with law enforcement duties and many are exactly that. In the Netherlands, the Royal Marechaussee are literal soldiers who perform military police duties and also many civilian policing duties, but all of them are soldiers first.
  - close04 1y ago
    > A Gendarmerie is literally a military force with law enforcement duties The second part is a huge differentiator from "normal" military. A police force even if administratively under the military has one crucial differentiator: their daily duties and training revolve almost exclusively around policing civilians from the same country. Military training and tactics are overwhelmingly aimed at dealing with foreign enemy combatants, mainly other military forces. The methods give away the intentions and expected outcome. The US already has a very "militarized" police force. You send actual military only if you want to inflict the maximum amount of damage, and with that threat overwhelmingly scare the country into compliance.
    - closewith 1y ago
      > their daily duties and training revolve almost exclusively around policing mainly civilians, citizens of the same country. That is the part that is not universally true. There are plenty of Gendarmeries who are soldiers first, with combat training and ethos, who also perform policing duties, the Marechaussee included.
      - 1y ago
eldgfipo 1y ago
As a French, I'd argue we're a flawed democracy. Shame on us when we compare ourselves to Scandinavian countries.
hotmeals 1y ago
Some of the cases you mention involve "military" police who are under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, instead of the Ministry of Defense. Many also are not the only police force, in Chile the investigative duties fall to the non-military PDI. IMO as Chilean, it's a pretty bad thing democratically, for both historical (dictatorship) and more recent reasons. Still, there is a clear difference between when the police with deep ties to the army enforce the law and when actual troops do it. While copper Gutiérrez and grunt Herrera both technically have the rank of corporal, one mostly writes tickets, deals with noise complaints, and has riot training, while the other only knows how to march and shoot an assault rifle. The actually important thing is that this is testing the waters. Trump will use the troops for flimsier and flimsier reasons. NOTE: Chilean police are semi-routinely brutal; this is not an endorsement.
aredox 1y ago
Superficial argument. The "gendarmerie" is exclusively trained in law enforcement. The military aspect is only relative to organisational aspects.
jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
In Portugal, the Guarda Civil are cops in rural areas. I have no special insight into their training or hierarchy, but I can tell you that in practice they interact with the population like cops, not like soldiers. E.g. you wouldn't report shoplifting to the army, but you can report to the Guarda Civil. So I don't think your comment makes any sense, at least in Portugal.
- tiagod 1y ago
  There is no "Guarda Civil" in Portugal. It's called Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR).
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
    I haven't lived there in almost 15 years. I stand corrected. In fact I'm closer in time to having lived in Spain than in Portugal, that must be the origin of my confusion. In any case, I hope you agree my description of the GNR was accurate in substance.
    - tiagod 1y ago
      Yes you are correct. They also patrol some highways (although I believe some are the jurisdiction of PSP)
dontlaugh 1y ago
Those are bad too. Anyone that grew up in a country with a gendarmerie knows they are the most violent, unpleasant and fascist (personally, not like "all cops are fascist") people you’ll ever meet.
the_gipsy 1y ago
Having police not separated from military doesn't invalidate the democracy, it just makes it easier to subvert democracy at some point. The spanish Guardia Civil is a very good example of a police force tied too deeply with the military. In 1981 some parts of the force attempted an actual coup, with one guy entering the parliament and shooting in the air (or ceiling). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt The continuity of the Guardia Civil after Franco's dictatorship is one of many vestiges that has not been removed due to fears of creating an instability leading to some coup and a reversal to fascism. IMHO this may have been justified the years immediately after Franco's death, but should have been addressed at some point. See the 1981 coup as for why "appeasing" the oppressors usually doesn't work out, or even works out for the oppressors.
- anthk 1y ago
  The Guardia Civil itself predates Franco, and to be fair some GC agents fought for the Republican side in the war.
  - the_gipsy 1y ago
    True. But AFAIK they were a crucial element of the regime's oppression, especially in rural areas. Their logo even today still contains a fasces[1] shield, which as been added during the Franco regime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
If the US has laws that forbid that, and other nations have laws that establish that, then the US military being used for police activities is threatening to democracy - or at least to the rule of law - in a way that it is not threatening in other countries. Other countries can do that if they want. It may or may not be a threat to them. But in the US, it's absolutely a threat to democracy, because it's already the executive deploying the military against the law.

by kpw94 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> serious question: are Countries such as Italy, France etc not a democracy? They are, but not in the the "framework of US constitutional democracy." A system for which we have more evidence of stability than either of Italy or France's modern republics. (Note, too, les gendarmes' heritage: imperial France. Also, gendarmes aren't usually deployed overseas. They are, in a sense, more similar to the FBI than the U.S. Marines.)

gabaix 1y ago
I have always found confusing the existence of the gendarmes. They are indeed a vestigial force of the XIXth century, and should be transformed into a regular police force.
- aredox 1y ago
  On the contrary, they are more relevant than ever in today's era of peacekeeping and anti-terrorism activities. They are fundamental to the stabilisation of the Balkans, for example. They fill the gap between full war and "normal" (punctual) criminality.
  - gabaix 1y ago
    The issues are two-fold 1- the territorial split between gendarmerie/police within the French territory 2- the fact the gendarmes for police work report to the Ministry of Defense. If one had to design the police system from crash, they would likely merge police and gendarmes for police work.
    - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
      You forgot 3: a hatred between the organizations for ego reasons (not everyone, not everywhere). The split is nonsense today.

forty 1y ago

Gendarmerie are simply policemen with a military status which give them some duty (like I think they cannot strike) and some benefits (earlier retirement) but they are still really a police force in reality. I don't think it would look good to send actual army to fight citizens, and I don't think the army would appreciate it either (it might have been done already, no idea)

closewith 1y ago
That is not universally true. A Gendarmerie is literally a military force with law enforcement duties and many are exactly that. In the Netherlands, the Royal Marechaussee are literal soldiers who perform military police duties and also many civilian policing duties, but all of them are soldiers first.
- close04 1y ago
  > A Gendarmerie is literally a military force with law enforcement duties The second part is a huge differentiator from "normal" military. A police force even if administratively under the military has one crucial differentiator: their daily duties and training revolve almost exclusively around policing civilians from the same country. Military training and tactics are overwhelmingly aimed at dealing with foreign enemy combatants, mainly other military forces. The methods give away the intentions and expected outcome. The US already has a very "militarized" police force. You send actual military only if you want to inflict the maximum amount of damage, and with that threat overwhelmingly scare the country into compliance.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > their daily duties and training revolve almost exclusively around policing mainly civilians, citizens of the same country. That is the part that is not universally true. There are plenty of Gendarmeries who are soldiers first, with combat training and ethos, who also perform policing duties, the Marechaussee included.
    - 1y ago

eldgfipo 1y ago

As a French, I'd argue we're a flawed democracy. Shame on us when we compare ourselves to Scandinavian countries.

hotmeals 1y ago

Some of the cases you mention involve "military" police who are under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, instead of the Ministry of Defense. Many also are not the only police force, in Chile the investigative duties fall to the non-military PDI. IMO as Chilean, it's a pretty bad thing democratically, for both historical (dictatorship) and more recent reasons. Still, there is a clear difference between when the police with deep ties to the army enforce the law and when actual troops do it. While copper Gutiérrez and grunt Herrera both technically have the rank of corporal, one mostly writes tickets, deals with noise complaints, and has riot training, while the other only knows how to march and shoot an assault rifle. The actually important thing is that this is testing the waters. Trump will use the troops for flimsier and flimsier reasons. NOTE: Chilean police are semi-routinely brutal; this is not an endorsement.

aredox 1y ago

Superficial argument. The "gendarmerie" is exclusively trained in law enforcement. The military aspect is only relative to organisational aspects.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago

In Portugal, the Guarda Civil are cops in rural areas. I have no special insight into their training or hierarchy, but I can tell you that in practice they interact with the population like cops, not like soldiers. E.g. you wouldn't report shoplifting to the army, but you can report to the Guarda Civil. So I don't think your comment makes any sense, at least in Portugal.

tiagod 1y ago
There is no "Guarda Civil" in Portugal. It's called Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR).
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  I haven't lived there in almost 15 years. I stand corrected. In fact I'm closer in time to having lived in Spain than in Portugal, that must be the origin of my confusion. In any case, I hope you agree my description of the GNR was accurate in substance.
  - tiagod 1y ago
    Yes you are correct. They also patrol some highways (although I believe some are the jurisdiction of PSP)

dontlaugh 1y ago

Those are bad too. Anyone that grew up in a country with a gendarmerie knows they are the most violent, unpleasant and fascist (personally, not like "all cops are fascist") people you’ll ever meet.

the_gipsy 1y ago

Having police not separated from military doesn't invalidate the democracy, it just makes it easier to subvert democracy at some point. The spanish Guardia Civil is a very good example of a police force tied too deeply with the military. In 1981 some parts of the force attempted an actual coup, with one guy entering the parliament and shooting in the air (or ceiling). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt The continuity of the Guardia Civil after Franco's dictatorship is one of many vestiges that has not been removed due to fears of creating an instability leading to some coup and a reversal to fascism. IMHO this may have been justified the years immediately after Franco's death, but should have been addressed at some point. See the 1981 coup as for why "appeasing" the oppressors usually doesn't work out, or even works out for the oppressors.

anthk 1y ago
The Guardia Civil itself predates Franco, and to be fair some GC agents fought for the Republican side in the war.
- the_gipsy 1y ago
  True. But AFAIK they were a crucial element of the regime's oppression, especially in rural areas. Their logo even today still contains a fasces[1] shield, which as been added during the Franco regime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

If the US has laws that forbid that, and other nations have laws that establish that, then the US military being used for police activities is threatening to democracy - or at least to the rule of law - in a way that it is not threatening in other countries. Other countries can do that if they want. It may or may not be a threat to them. But in the US, it's absolutely a threat to democracy, because it's already the executive deploying the military against the law.