planetary police jurisdictions
- Thread starter l_c_jackson
- Start date
Though it is the cultural heir of the Terran Confederation which means that those ideas are available to its legislative elements.
However, no one have suggested that it is (in this thread).
I have argued that police and military functions are different in nature and that a lot of people think that mixing those functions is a profoundly bad idea (while acknowledging that it happens in a lot of places anyway).
Dragoner has argued that the US routinely use its military to perform police functions, which is, a) not true, and b) wouldn't have disproved my claim even if he had been right.
Illustrating by analogy, on the other hand, is an excellent tool for conveying the nature of a particular setting to players (As long as one is careful to avoid the inherent pitfalls).
Any time you have the energy to sit down and write up a really different setting with weird and wonderful off-beat features and can be sufficiently concise to get my players to read it, please do. Until that happens, though, I'm going to stick to "Who'd investigate this sort of crime in this place, you ask? That's be the Regina System Patrol. They're sort of Regina's FBI."
And I'm not going to apologize for it.
Hans
I didn't think you were.
There is a predilection however to take that with which we are familiar from our daily lives and assume the same holds true across both history and geography. The idea that armies make bad police forces is one which has only been "true" for a limited time in a limited place, so assuming the same would hold true, for example, in the 57th Century and on Regina speaks more about the person holding that opinion than about the concept itself.
The Third Imperium is not the US, EU, or a 21st Century liberal Western democracy because human experience, both historically and currently, is not the US, EU, or a 21st Century liberal Western democracy.
Developing the Third Imperium should be more than plunking down fusion plants, jump drives, and psionics in Peoria.
By that logic mutiny is a routine occurence in the US Navy.
I think you should get a dictionary and check out what the rest of us think that 'routine' means.
Hans
No, you, Ishmael and myself have proved beyond a doubt that it is routine enough through the regulations as well as emipicical examples. You are confusing the US with western europe, which I know as well; you have a european attitude to the military which the US does not.
"1. a customary or regular course of procedure."
Seems the dictionary disagrees with you.
Four of five branches of the US military is greatly restricted in their use for law enforcement tasks and the fifth come under the same restrictions when transferred to the Department of Defense. Calling the use of the US military for law enforcement routine is utterly ridiculous.
It is also, as I note you haven't disputed, completely beside my original point.
Hans
Just how is the use of troops in emergencies regular?
"3. a performance regularly presented by an individual or group".
Hans
It is what it is, no matter how you feel about it.
No good deed goes unpunished. :rofl:
Well, troops are regularly used in emergencies.
edit: and that definition is for a theatrical production or such performance, the definition I used is the precise one.
Last edited:
Emergencies are regular in the US?
That's just so sad on so many levels.
I keep forgetting what discussing with you is like. I should know better by now. The thing is, though, that I'm so used to the perception that stopping arguing is tantamount to conceding the point and not just realizing the futility of further argument. But I'm going to stop now, and it's not because I'm conceding anything.
If anybody else disagrees with me, I'm quite willing to continue arguing with them, either here or by PM.
Hans
Regular enough for a colloquialism of: "Thank God, the Cavalry has arrived." to be in common usage, not really sad at all, it is just a different cultural standard. I am actually just helping you out, as it seems you were using the definition wrong.
getting back to the op's question...
from the spinward marches entry on regina:
"Only small outposts exist on the other worlds of the Lusor system, but in addition to Regina itself the moons of Assiniboia are inhabited by hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people, but these settlements are considered to be part of Regina for administrative purposes rather than being independent worlds. Their social and economic importance is very small compared to that of the mainworld with its hundreds of millions of people and the vast trading centre that is the Highport."
might indicate that the POC's jurisdiction extends across the system. given the importance of regina it makes sense that it would be under a single authority tho with distance a certain amount of autonomy is necessary and that that single LE authority would liaise with the system defence/sub sector/imperial navies to ensure "coverage".
(just to note, i'm playing a character in the game Lindsay is talking about
)
from the spinward marches entry on regina:
"Only small outposts exist on the other worlds of the Lusor system, but in addition to Regina itself the moons of Assiniboia are inhabited by hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people, but these settlements are considered to be part of Regina for administrative purposes rather than being independent worlds. Their social and economic importance is very small compared to that of the mainworld with its hundreds of millions of people and the vast trading centre that is the Highport."
might indicate that the POC's jurisdiction extends across the system. given the importance of regina it makes sense that it would be under a single authority tho with distance a certain amount of autonomy is necessary and that that single LE authority would liaise with the system defence/sub sector/imperial navies to ensure "coverage".
(just to note, i'm playing a character in the game Lindsay is talking about
)Entry where? There are several different sources.
That sounds right enough but I don't recognize the source.
POC stands for...?
A proliferation of different law enforcement organizations with vicious turf wars seems more realistic to me. :devil:
Really, different police agencies for different levels of political organization seems pretty standard. Within countries on Erath today you often find both national, regional, and municipal organizations, though some organizations cover two or even all three levels and smaller countries (such as Denmark)make do with two levels. IMTU Regina is divided into three (national, provincial (each province covers a continent and associated islands), and municipal), but four would be easy to justify. Off-Regina settlements are all so small that they would either just have the national organization or that and a municipal one.
Hans
Last edited:
quoted from the Mongoose pdf, The Spinward Marches, page 67
POC, Public Order Commission, referenced in Lindsay's OP.
comparing earth today with what may be in the far future seems to narrow one's options. that the earth is heavily balkanised/fractured may not give the best of examples.
it seems to be human nature that we create fractures and yes, they make for good plots but why assume that LE agencies whose jurisdictions cross over will fail to co operate as the cliche of todays would?
(given our contact with the POC so far in game, they are incompetent, officious and guarded, the probability is high that there will be conflict between jurisdictions :rofl
POC, Public Order Commission, referenced in Lindsay's OP.
comparing earth today with what may be in the far future seems to narrow one's options. that the earth is heavily balkanised/fractured may not give the best of examples.
it seems to be human nature that we create fractures and yes, they make for good plots but why assume that LE agencies whose jurisdictions cross over will fail to co operate as the cliche of todays would?
(given our contact with the POC so far in game, they are incompetent, officious and guarded, the probability is high that there will be conflict between jurisdictions :rofl
Thank you.
My mistake. I thought the POC was the Reginan government agency that fulfilled a function similar to that which the Department of Justice fulfills in the US.
The options are broad enough. It's the work involved in coming up with something unfamiliar to the referee and the players and the work involved in conveying it to the players that narrow them.
Why would a unified world be organized substantially different from a large country like Canada or the US? I did mention that four levels would be easy to justify (national (i.e. planetary), continental, regional, municipal).
Because it is my belief that empire-building and glory-hogging and budget-chasing arise from fundamental deep-seated traits in human nature and will be with us for as long as we remain human beings. And because it is much more likely that the goals of rival agencies will conflict than that they will dovetail, and if they conflict, discord will ensue.
(Also, it's easier to make players figure out how things work if they work in ways they are familiar with.
)(Also, it makes it easier to throw in one or two surprises for the PCs.
)Hans
Deliberately casting aside analogies and examples from western democracies, just for the sake of being different should also be frowned upon as it limits options.
I merely was attempting to show that military agencies can and do engage in law enforcement on a regular basis. Not just the USCG, but the USN in anti-piracy and drug interdiction operations. There have even been arguments that the USN should engage in drug interdiction without restriction while under the command and control of the USCG ( who have greater experience in such actions ).
Given that the 3I does not impose its own government and organization on member worlds, then any sort of organization for defence and law enforcement is fair game so long as it falls within the limits of negotiated treaties with the 3I.
Given that traders can be armed just as heavily as similarly sized military ships, then any law enforcement should either be military, be equipped to military standards, or have military forces attached to and under the command of the law enforcement units for immediate firepower support ( much as USN units would be under the command of USCG units as argued by LCdr Mark J. Salonia, USN, on globalsecurity.org ).
Hans:
The US Military, in both the guise of the USCG and in the guise of certain National Guard units, has been used for border patrol (a police function) continuously since 9/11, and in the case of the USCG, since it's militarization in the late 19th C.
The US military, specifically, the Army National Guard (a partially state funded localized subsidiary of the US Army) has routinely been used for riot suppression and disaster area policing, as that's part of it's stated mission and funding mandates!
To say that the military in the US is a police agency would be innacurate, but it is routinely engaging some military personell in law enforcement activities against civilians on a regular basis, and has been used for same since the 1960's. Calling out the National Guard to protect bussed students was not "unusual" - it was explicitly within the mandate for the national guard.
Now, ObTrav: Canon says the local world has authority to 100 diameters. COACC has authority from takeoff to 1/10 diameter above surface; planetary navies above that. The MT COACC book states categorically that a standardized branch separation has become normative in the imperium, with 4 elements: Ground Forces/Army, Wet Navy, Airforcess/COACC, Space Navy. A 5th, not mentioned, would typically exist - Wet-Marines/Wet-Naval-Infantry - but would be either considered army or wet navy by specific details. A 6th, likewise, is the space marines - be they merely rapid deployment ground troops, or integrated troops with naval duties. Canon shows us Army, Wet Navy, Airforce/COACC, Space Navy, and Space Marines, but not Wet-Marines - tho' the Army skill list can readily include the wet marines as wet-mobile infantry/armor, while the Navy lists can readily produce some Naval Infantry.
But that doesn't mean that exceptions don't occur.
I'll point out multiple references to System Navies, and note that technically, they only have authority within 100 diameters of worlds governed by a system's mainworld - other bodies in system could, in theory, raise their own local navy.
And police, in the case of the USSR, were a paramilitary force that looked, and trained, almost identically to the Infantry, save for less on camping, and more on what is and is not allowed at large.
Police separate from military, or more correctly, a civil-only police system, seldom exists outside Europe. Many nations police are almost identical in training and uniform to the military, and in several, are part of unified hierarchies.
The US Military, in both the guise of the USCG and in the guise of certain National Guard units, has been used for border patrol (a police function) continuously since 9/11, and in the case of the USCG, since it's militarization in the late 19th C.
The US military, specifically, the Army National Guard (a partially state funded localized subsidiary of the US Army) has routinely been used for riot suppression and disaster area policing, as that's part of it's stated mission and funding mandates!
To say that the military in the US is a police agency would be innacurate, but it is routinely engaging some military personell in law enforcement activities against civilians on a regular basis, and has been used for same since the 1960's. Calling out the National Guard to protect bussed students was not "unusual" - it was explicitly within the mandate for the national guard.
Now, ObTrav: Canon says the local world has authority to 100 diameters. COACC has authority from takeoff to 1/10 diameter above surface; planetary navies above that. The MT COACC book states categorically that a standardized branch separation has become normative in the imperium, with 4 elements: Ground Forces/Army, Wet Navy, Airforcess/COACC, Space Navy. A 5th, not mentioned, would typically exist - Wet-Marines/Wet-Naval-Infantry - but would be either considered army or wet navy by specific details. A 6th, likewise, is the space marines - be they merely rapid deployment ground troops, or integrated troops with naval duties. Canon shows us Army, Wet Navy, Airforce/COACC, Space Navy, and Space Marines, but not Wet-Marines - tho' the Army skill list can readily include the wet marines as wet-mobile infantry/armor, while the Navy lists can readily produce some Naval Infantry.
But that doesn't mean that exceptions don't occur.
I'll point out multiple references to System Navies, and note that technically, they only have authority within 100 diameters of worlds governed by a system's mainworld - other bodies in system could, in theory, raise their own local navy.
And police, in the case of the USSR, were a paramilitary force that looked, and trained, almost identically to the Infantry, save for less on camping, and more on what is and is not allowed at large.
Police separate from military, or more correctly, a civil-only police system, seldom exists outside Europe. Many nations police are almost identical in training and uniform to the military, and in several, are part of unified hierarchies.
At the risk of being accused of using a "True Scotsman" argument, I would suggest that piracy suppression is a military function even if the rascals are breaking laws, just as suppression of armed insurrection would be a military task, one that an army would no doubt perform even if the insurrectionists weren't breaking any laws at all[*]. As for drug interdiction, if the USN was acting under the command and control of the USCG, it would presumably fall under the rules that govern the conduct of the USCG, just as the rules for the USN applies to USCG units seconded to the DoD.
[*] Joke. I don't see how it is possible to have an armed insurrection without breaking laws. But if it was possible, the army would suppress it anyway.
I couldn't have put it better myself, but I believe it is substantially the same as what I said.
Or perhaps the law enforcement agency would simply not be expected to engaged in naval action with armed traders.
Why do you say that border patrol is a police function? It sounds like a pretty straighforward military task to me. It certainly is performed by military forces in a lot of countries.
Routinely in the sense that it is so employed when riots and disasters occur. Not routinely in that riots and disasters are not daily occurrences.
Guarding civilians against armed attack seems like a perfectly proper military function.
That's simply not true. A number of countries have para-military police forces in addition to civil-only police forces, and I suppose there may be some that have only para-military police, but I don't know of any.
Hans
Except that the USN never falls under the rules of the USCG, because, by international law, a Navy isn't law enforcement, but naval assets can include naval law enforcement service.
In order for USN ships to act in border enforcement, they have to have a USCG officer aboard... he's the actual inspector, the navy's just his ride. International law mandates the same for any nation with an at sea border enforcement agency. Because, by treaty, border patrol is not a military duty.
[/quote] it's happened in the US before. Technically, any time the NRA organizes a march to non-reelect a sitting elected official for being pro-gun control, and members bring weapons, it's an armed insurrection - even if no weapon is fired. It's the use of armed persons to attempt regime change.
That's certainly NOT evidenced by the tables in CT/MT/MGT/T4/T5... Police in all those get access to ship skills.
They don't get much in the way of ship-combat skill, but that can be read to be a situation where a police ship might be crewed by mixed crews, and the gunners are all seconded from the Navy or Marines...
Because porder patrol has been, in the US and many european nations, a paramilitary civil force, and border agencies are NOT military in most nations - and when a separate force, even when paramilitary, they are not considered military personnel for international law.
Because, since the early 1700's, armed forces on the borders in military uniform under orders from the marshallate rather than the constable have been a causus beli under international "law".
In other words, you are not thinking straight, Hans, and are ignoring the political reality of Army personnel on the border: such is seen as one thing only... A preparation for war.
Mexico, by the way, objects strenuously to US Army National Guard forces being used to patrol the Mexico-US border, and about the level of hardware the USBP has been equipped with (it being too military).
Not daily, no - but they are, in fact, routinely TRAINED for such duties, and perform them often - no year goes by when some guard unit or another gets seconded to back up local police with military weapons during some natural disaster. In the US, doing so requires seconding them so that each team fielded is with a police officer or MP... but that's got to do with
Not when the "armed attack" is from other members of that very same nationality/country/polity.
Last edited: