If you had to choose a nation to take on the power of protecting the world basically as a global police force who would you choose to take on this big responsibility? Well most of the countries are choosing the U.S. well the troops feel different on this topic they feel like it is not our duty to try and solve everyone else’s problem. They also need to help with issues that this is needed and we are the best trained and best equipped to react to any scenario. Because the united states is making two new brigades that are trained to resolve issues without violence and to depend more on social skills but still trained well enough to fight in a pinch, and we have thousands of troops deployed already as peacekeepers which are basically global police. So we already have a start on the job but what about the cost who is gonna even the costs so we arent losing money. But is the cost of all this worth it the cost of human lives worth everyone elses protection how do the men in uniform feel about being a global cop when there country is not in harm some of them feel like this “troops have a hard time dealing with the fact that their missions represent no clear threat to our national interests making it more difficult for them to be separated from their families for long periods of time”. (O’Meara) As stated before some soldiers feel this is not there job they did not join the military to be a cop they joined to be a soldier and protect their freedom no one elses. They think that a global police force would be a good thing but they want it to be a job you sign up for cause they just want their freedom to be protected cause they think it is not what they signed on for. The reason in the past 20-25 years this has become a big deal because of the past terrorist attacks, so they want to keep the terrorist groups under control.
The next issue that came up is our defense budget, if we became the global police force then it would cost us a lot of money like it already does “the U.S. defense debt is more than $280 billion more than $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the united states”.
Schrader. E. (2003, June 28). US push for global police force. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from
Police Powers in N.S.W The Police Force in N.S.W must have sufficient powers so that they are able to enforce the law properly and effectively for the safety of the community and its occupants. Powers, which provide Police to maintain and enforce the law, include: stop search powers, powers of arrest, move on powers, confiscation powers and the power to obtain personal details along with various others. Search powers permit police officers, for example, who have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has unlawful custody of a dangerous implement, to search the person and to examine any other personal effects, the person in question has with them (Summary Offences Act section 28A). After this search police may confiscate the implement or implements in the possession of the person who has it in their unlawful custody (Summary Offences Act 28B). After this the officer may formally charge the person or proceed with a summons, now the person must divulge their name and address.
What do you think when you see a police car? Do you feel safer knowing there 's a police officer if anything happens or do you get nervous and think you might get pulled over. The majority of people get nervous when they see a police car. With all the cases in which police use excessive force to arrest or kill a suspect people are more worried and the armored vehicles don 't help. The whole world watched in the early days of the Ferguson protests the huge police response. Armored vehicles, gas masks, assault rifles all worn with a military like uniform, this is the police that exists today. Do small police departments like Fergusons really need mine resistant armored vehicles or drones? I don 't think they do and that 's why I think that the
Military to ever take on a law enforcement role with the boundaries of the United States. To put it another way, our country and our states have multiple levels of law enforcement agencies that can handle any situation they are presented with. Some agencies specialize in specific areas, while others provide more of general service. Each state has basically mirrored its’ approach to law enforcement in many ways based on the federal approach. Meaning, most states have a state bureau of investigation, a state office of homeland security, state level emergency management agencies and general service state police agencies. It is for the this reason that there should never be a need for the U.S. Military to take on a law enforcement
t Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate in Milwaukee, Rand Paul railed against Marco Rubio for calling for increases to the military budget: “How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting programs that you’re not paying for.” Rubio replied by arguing that “we can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe,” and that “the world is a safer place when America is the strongest military power in the world.” This brief exchange captures a debate that’s been dividing America's political class for years. Paul is standing in for those, on the left and the right, who believe that the time has come for the U.S. to stop pretending it can be the world’s policeman, and to start shifting money from our military to needs closer to home. Rubio speaks for those in both parties who see U.S. global leadership as more important than ever, and who worry about the erosion of U.S. military power. Both sides make compelling arguments. But in the end, Rubio is right. The
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
(1) “Arguably, the most important military component in the War on Terror is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we enable and empower our partners to defend and govern their own countries. How the Army should be organized and prepared for this advisory role remains an open question, and will require innovative and forward thinking.” — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 10 October 2007.1
Recently, the issue of the militarization of police forces has become a major issue in the media. Following the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, the question became very relevant; is it okay for police forces to use military equipment? The debate had two very clear sides with very few in between. The question involves, police use of bayonets, armored vehicles, shields, tear gasses, and gas masks. On Monday, May 18, 2015, in Camden, New Jersey, Barack Obama and his administration, moved to prohibit federal agencies from providing, police officers with certain kinds of military equipment, such as grenade launchers, high-caliber weapons and bayonets. This came after the controversy over a militarized police response to the rioting and unrest last summer in Ferguson, Missouri (Perez, Liptak, & Malloy, 2015). Even with these restrictions, police forces are still able to purchase this baned equipment from private sellers.
When examining the fundamentals of police legitimacy, the adoption of evidence based policing is one proven to be preferred. Proven ethical standers of transparency within police agencies back this practice of policing. The fundamental of this practice includes goals, objectives, and plans for the community. This also includes the development of the agencies employees using the latest proven techniques such as deescalating tactics. (Swanson 2017)
It's undeniable that over the past few decades, America has taken the role of the policemen of the world. From gruesome wars like Vietnam to modern issues in the Middle East, the United States has acted as instigators of justice against enemies of the common good. But in recent years, our eagerness to resolve every global skirmish has become detrimental to
Protect and Serve,those are the words that should most commonly appear when speaking of the police force within our country, but since its introduction into our society policing has yet to entirely fulfill those duties.Minorities have been a target of unfair treatment and brutality,as many Slave Patrolling citizens became those who would enforce the law of the land. Instead of policing being a direct response to crime, it originally became a response to urbanization and to ensure an orderly workforce as well as to control those who were deemed to be inferior.
A look back on the beginning on policing in America can give us insight to modern day issues within policing since majority of our issues and ideas are not new and have existed since the beginning of policing. Evolution of policing within America is based on prior events that shaped the way we police in modern day. All ideas and issues are traced back to an earlier time in our history which helps us better understand issues and ideas of modern day better.
Are the Police really “helping” people? Recently in America, there have been many controversial issues towards police and how they try to stop the violence, specifically towards African Americans. For example, Alton Sterling, a man who lived in Louisiana was shot several times after being tackled by two police officers for trying to sell CDs outside a local convenience store. A few days later there was one black man who was a military soldier by the name of Micah Xavier Johnson who was so furious with the issue that he ended up taking matters into his own hands by shooting five police officers. This is not right on both sides and the tension between African Americans and police is rising due to these recent incidents but, can be changed by
Members of The United Nations have a duty “to maintain international peace…in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.”[1] China, a core member of the United Nations since its formation in 1945, fails to comply with international human rights’ norms set forth by The United Nations Charter. This failure is noticeably prevalent in the practices of the Chinese Legal System. Its judicial proceedings in handling peaceful, political dissenters fail to provide the minimum protection of human rights guaranteed to all through international law. By examining accounts of Tibetans detained for such peaceful protests, this paper will set out to highlight the discrepancies between Chinese enforcement of international law in theory and in practice. Before this paper goes any further, the notion of international law must be explained. Providing a better understanding of international law will make easier the task of highlighting China’s struggles with enforcing such standards.
Obviously when talking about global security, there needs to actually be the security aspect of it. Such aspect comes from the military itself. The military’s role is to protect both the people of the public and private sectors. Due to this, the military can play the most important role of the three. With being the most important of the three, there also comes the time that needs to be put within it to make sure that this part can function at its maximum potential. Allowing the military to function at its maximum potential allows the public and private to feel at ease with their safety. This does not only constitute for the United States, but all over the entire