Holger at Holger Awakens referred me to an article about a Rand Corporation study, done at the request of the U.S. Army, looking at the advisability of forming a U.S. Stability Police Force (feel the chill up your back?). The Rand study was provided to “the community of rule-of-law reserarchers,” and others. I do not see a date on the report but do see a 2009 copyright. On page xiv, the conclusion is:
Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission.
What is a Stability Police Force:
What are high-end police? High-end police fill a critical gap between military forces and civilian police. They are trained to deal with higher levels of crime and violence than regular civilian police, and are able to perform such tasks as high-end criminality identification, criminal investigation, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), crowd and riot control, and intelligence collection and analysis. Importantly, they areoften the only police force able to counter organized criminal groups embedded in the emerging power structuresAn SPF is a high-end police force that engages in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups. In its ability to operate in stability operations, it is similar to such European forces as the Italian Carabinieri and French Gendarmerie. Its focus on highend tasks makes it fundamentally different from UN or other civilian police, who deal with more routine law and order functions. It is also different from most military forces, which are generally not trained and experienced to conduct policing tasks in a civilian environment.
If we need this SPF, why do we need and FBI or CIA?
Why is an SPF important?
Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if Summary xv it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap.
The report concludes that the U.S. Military is the best option for a Stability Force, but the Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t allow our Military to turn its guns on citizens, so this civilian-hybrid force is the next best option, and the U.S. Marshal’s Service is the best place to put it. The report also concludes that the upsides of forming the SPF outweigh the downsides.
Primacy of SecurityOther objectives, such as political freedom, economic growth, and improving health conditions are important. They help set the conditions in which security can be maintained, and they contribute to a rightly ordered society. But for these objectives to be realized, a basic level of security is critical.The absence of security makes it difficult to rebuild political, economic, and other sectors.
Today, our Federal Government already has these policing forces: The DEA, The BATFE, The Federal Bureau of Prisons, Homeland Security which includes the Secret Service and TSA and is the largest arm of U.S. law enforcement. We have the Coast Guard, Immigrations, Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, The Federal Protective Service, The CIA, The FBI – all sworn Federal Law enforcement.
Now for those who read this and think, oh no, another Conservative with another conspiracy theory – the government versus the people, I remind you that the U.S. Army commissioned the report. The report uses an example of anarchy around the world as a reason for the need of an SPF.
Objectives Countries on the verge of war, suffering war, or emerging from war face a variety of threats from extremist and criminal organizations. Most usually face a condition of emerging anarchy.
The SPFOR (to use the inevitable acronym) would be a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit created within the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for use “in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups” — both abroad, in UN-directed multilateral military operations, and at home, as dictated by the needs of the Regime…Back in 1961, the U.S. Government produced a document entitled “Freedom From War” that envisioned the creation of a globe-spanning United Nations “Peace Force” that would work in collaboration with a militarized “internal security” force in each country. Since that time, critics of the UN have anticipated the day when foreign “peacekeepers” would be assigned to police American streets and, if necessary, confiscate privately owned firearms.
While the monstrosity headquartered on the East River [Homeland Security] is a proper target of our scorn and hostility, the new RAND study underscores the fact that if “peacekeepers” end up patrolling American streets, they probably won’t be foreigners in blue berets, but homegrown jackboots commanded by Washington.
A fascist stazi federal para-military force to dictate enforcement policy to our elected local sheriffs and police forces.
You see, local police and sheriffs are not obligated to enforce federal policy, they only do so when they feel like it. This is a stop gap against federal tyranny. The supreme court has ruled numerous times that local police have no obligation to enforce federal law.
What the RAND and other fascist police state supporting military contract hording corporations want is a federal force not beholden to local electors that can slam the boot of tyranny down on the public’s face unhindered
I don’t know what the result of this report will be, but it is obvious our government is considering an SPF. Whatever…we need to toll the bell. The report is long. I invite you to check it out by clicking here.