Revolution: Whisky Rebellion

What was the relevance of the Whisky Rebellion’s comprehensive efforts and reaction in terms of military efforts and appraisal applied directly to other protests compared to the 2014 Ferguson Riots?
The Whiskey Revolt offered the central government of the United States its first opportunity by the military to form federal control. Distilled whiskey from small farmers in the countryside, which was easier to ship and sell for sale than its source, the corn. It was a casual currency, sustenance practices, and an elevator from brutal presence. The distillers opposed the tax imposed by the government by assaulting (frequently publicly shaming) government income officers who endeavored to gather it. Numerous Americans, especially individuals from the Thomas Jefferson who speared the youngster resistance RP (Republican Party), were shocked by the excessive utilization of state power in containing the rebellion. The resistants’ dreaded the power would be an initial step to supreme power. To Federalists, in any case, the most imperative outcome was that the national specialist had triumphed over its first defiant foe and had acquired the help of the central administration in authorizing elected law inside the country

The enduring impacts of the Whiskey Rebellion were vast. The concealment of the disobedience had assembled full endorsement, an accomplishment in the thoughts of Washington and different individuals from the United States’ Congress. The administration’s follow up on the defiance demonstrated the ability of the new central government to offer protection to U.S rules. Indeed, even after the resistance, in any case, numerous ranchers still declined to pay the tax fees on Whiskey, a reality that the central administration did not have any desire to concede. By the by, the concealment of the resistance was an immense image of the energy of the national government.

The dissent brought up the issue of what sorts of challenges were reasonable by the regime. The government favored the right to speak freely, and did not have any desire to smother the thoughts of its citizens, nonetheless they needed to choose where the line was between a challenge and a resistance. The administration trusted that on the grounds that the U.S. government had been confirmed by its sovereign individuals, they had not ideal to dissent it by additional sacred means. The dissidents thought in an unexpected way. The disobedience influenced many western agriculturists to partake and vote to decide the laws and agents of their administration, rather than merely challenging it. No comparable insubordination in which the government has tested the privilege of the state and the privilege to appeal to has happened since. The assessment was not revoked until the point that the power in the government moved to Thomas Jefferson’s party in the year of eighteen thousand.

Sources

Govern, Kevin, Defense Support of Civil Authorities: An Examination of Trends Impacting Upon Police Militarization, Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, Volume 23, Issue 1, Article 3, (9th, January, 2016). Page 89-134.

Tighe, Scott and Brown, William, The Militarization of Law Enforcement: Bypassing the Pose Comitatus Act, Justice Policy Journal, Volume 12, Number 2, (2015), Page 1-28

Question Two

The challenges and origins behind use of title 10 forces for domestic law enforcement and why Governors are very reluctant to use their national guard forces when they are not subject to PCA. Why is use of the military for domestic law enforcement operations so particularly sensitive to U.S. society when it’s fairly acceptable and normal in most other advanced democracies to varying degrees? What is the importance and difference to military forces compared to a professional police force and what are the limitations in expecting law enforcement with disaster response?

The U.S. public rule enforcement component has always acquired support from the military in implementing their policies. The army needs to be ready to impose the rules of law as stated by the Constitution. Consequently, the military is obliged to comprehend the general concerns of the society, crucial contextual information as well as the lawful authorities when acting within their home country. Having a vibrant understanding of the above facts is necessary for the militia to optimize efficiency and evade the abuse of the local people when summoned to maintain civil law in their motherland (Merutka, and McFadden 1).

The misuse of the U.S. Armed Forces dates back during the Second World War when the military was involved in elimination and imprisonment of over 110, 000 citizens of Japanese descent despite most of them being devoted Americans (Merutka, and McFadden 6). The apprehension of the committed Americans was unlawful before the Supreme Law Court. The State Commander and the Congress seconded the Court that indeed the act was not just. During the United States’ Reconstruction Period, the Armed Forces were also blamed for frightening voters in various states in Southern America thereby affecting the Presidential election results (Merutka, and McFadden 6). All involvements of the army in the martial law enforcement were considered improper by the U.S. Supreme Court.

More current instances indicate the concerns about the improper use of the paramilitaries in law enforcement. In 2012, George Bush, the president was coaxed by high-ranking government representatives to employ the army in arresting some gang suspects in the U.S. The please was wisely disregarded instead, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) was engaged in capturing the six Lackawanna suspects (Merutka, and McFadden 7). The occurrence exhibits the misunderstandings over the rightful incorporation of the army. The disagreement is a challenge in using the military to enforce the law. Whereas some state representatives regard this tactic as the most effective method in implementing the law, some consider the action a misuse of the military since there are other bodies such as the FBI who can handle the same task. The opposing side argues that the military should only be involved in state emergencies such as wars and not local incidences such as terror threats (Merutka, and McFadden 7).

The state guard operating under the orders of the Governor and the national control are discharged from the limitations of PCA (Posse Comitatus Act), However, despite the exemption, governors resist using their state guards because most of them are not federalized (Geiger 12). During law prosecution actions, if the guard is not federalization, then they cannot perform tasks which have not been approving by the military requirement tests. More so, the governors hold back on using their state guard because they faced significant equipment challenges when their troops were deployed to fight the Terror War. Subsequently, the disposition aftermath traumatized the soldiers and reduced the number of equipment since some were left overseas after the wars (Geiger 14). Using the U.S army for local enforcement practices is a sensitive matter because the interaction can create fights with the public society. The conflicts can create a rift and enemy between the army and the citizens thereby creating hatred among them. Such as situation is to be discouraged because anytime the military appears in public there will be high tension among the people. More being a superpower, means the United States has a compelling army that can easily overpower the country if provoked.

The military and the police officers are different units of the law enforcement unit. The army is trained and equipped to use force to restore order. On the other hand, the police are required to restore order without using dangerous equipment. The police should only resort to using violence as a last option when handling a situation. Therefore, it is improper to incorporate the wrong group of officers to contain a case which they are not trained. For example, employing the Armed Forces to restore peace without violence.

Sources

Geiger, Deborah, Posse Comitatus, TheArmy and Homeland Security: What is the proper Balance? (24th, January, 2006). Page 1-16

Merutka, Craig and McFadden Rogger, Use of Armed Forces for Domestic Law Enforcement; United States Army College Class of 2013, (March, 2013). Page 1-24

Question Three

Explain the unique role of the U.S. Coast Guard and how that organization, as a military service, represents a critical role in Homeland Security.

Among the United States, Homeland Security service units are the Coast Guard military and multi-mission service section. Protection of the environment, as well as the public in the marine, is the central role of the U.S.CG (United States Coast Guard). The regions under supervision include the multinational water, as well as the American coasts, harbors and the internal watercourses. In maintaining the safety of the marine areas, the U.S.CG works to eradicate demises, grievances as well as the destruction of property that relates to coastal activities (5 U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions 48). The practices include transportation at the harbor, fish harvesting, and leisure boat riding. The missions involved in the safety practices include hindrance, reaction plus investigation. Providing licenses to commercial fishers, maintaining the standards of marine recreational items and public education on the safe use of the recreational waters are some of the preventive practices that the U.S.CG undertakes. Nevertheless, U.S.CG represents the country in IMO (International Marine Organization). The organization insists on safety cargo and passenger shipping, and constant inspection of both foreign and internal maritime facilities to mitigate any likely risks. As the SAR (Search and Rescue) agency, U.S.CG keeps a setup of communication networks, boat points, and a summon and control unit along the coat for an immediate response to emergencies (5 U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions 48).

More so U.S.CG serves alongside the U.S. Navy to sustain the weaponry, training courses, conducting the measures required for attacks. U.S.CG as a military unit carries out military conservational reaction operations, performs controls processes along the marine and engages in nonviolent military activities (5 U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions 49). Additionally, U.S.CG protects the American marine borders and authority. The unit takes part in the federal law enforcement and other multinational contracts relating to the U.S. waters. Interjection in the implementation of drug trafficking and immigration laws is the new functions that U.S.CG has been assigned. The agency has the right and powers to inspect all the equipment used in the harbors, investigate any suspicious action and arrest criminals to enhance harmony at the shore.

The U.S.CG pursues measures to protect the natural assets of the U.S. It works towards containing ecological damages and degradation resulting from recreational, shipment and fishing activities (5 U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions 50). The service unit imposes the regulations which guard the sensitive habitats, mammals and other endangered species of the marine. Besides, it enforces the laws which prevent the discharge of crude and processed oil in the oceans and seas.

Besides, U.S.CG has taken up the role of icebreaking as one of its state defense responsibility (Warren 5). On various occasions, the icebreakers have participated in support of governmental objectives by availing forums for methodical investigation in the Antarctic and Arctic as well as conducting paramilitary assignments in the Arctic. U.S.CG also acknowledges political agendas connected to the interests of the United States government as well as facilitate the transfer of international information on ice procedures (Warren 5).

Sources

5 U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions.“ Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2007. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11753.

Warren, Robert, The Coast Guards Critical Role as Armed Service, United States Army War College, Class of 2012, (22nd March, 2012), Page 1-29

Question Four

Explain the differences between Homeland Defense and Homeland Security. Who owns homeland defense and how is this understood and known (policy, strategy, NDAA, …all define this clearly as DOD). Who owns homeland security responsibilities and how do we know this? (funding and responsibilities are significantly shared compared to Homeland Defense.

Homeland Defense defines the action of the Department of Defense (DoD), to discourage, avert, conquer and contain the irregular and symmetric threats to the United States’ government. The department also offers aid to U.S citizens in times of unexpected natural or physical calamities. Symmetric dangers include the verbal or bodily threats posed by enemies to overpower their foe’s strength. Furthermore, irregular threats are the threats from foes aiming at using some methods that the state involved respond efficiently (DeMaso 4). The DoD’s resistance lay in the power of the administratively dressed services, united and empowered under the orders of the U.S.NC (U.S Northern Command). Some of the units under Homeland Protection include; U.S CG (United States Coast Guard), AAF (Alert Armed Forces), NORAD, an early warning unit as well as the Armed Conflict sectors (DeMaso 2). The leading central agency for homeland protection unit is DoD central agency. The agency also has some supporting characters in homeland security. A variety of NDAA (National Defense Authority Acts) was passed in 2017 by the Senate assembly to reform and enhance DoD’s strategies and processes (Johnson, 1). The reforms are aimed at defining challenges and developing the suitable resolution. NDAA created significant organizational configurations to the Department of Defense. For instance, the Act reorganized the series of command in the army such that an officer was required to obtain combined experience in all the units for them to be elevated to senior levels. The core goal of NDAA was to tackle the challenge; the incapacity of the armed forces units to acts in unity as a single team (Johnson, 1). NDAA offers a chance to outline the foundation for long-term state security transformation. However, without a vivid description of the challenge, the anticipated alterations cannot aid in developing the United States’ security results.

Homeland Security (HS) entails the joint efforts by non-martial state groups of the local, government and federal organizations to inhibit, anticipate, dissuade and overthrow violence against their country. The definition of Homeland Security is more general compared to the description by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses since it focuses less on terrorist activities (DeMaso 5). Besides, in some instances where the U.S. armed force has assisted civil administrations in cases where DoD militaries are an organized combination of DHS reaction. Homeland Safety is the correct name of the latest position of the cabinet, named DHS The units under Homeland Safety include; the Immigration, Boundary Patrol, Emergency Reaction, FEMA for calamity support, CIP (Critical Infrastructure Protection) and the Customs departments (DeMaso 2). HS aims at placing responsibilities where they are supposed to be as per the constitution. HS (Homeland Security) needs to be taken as a state enterprise rather than a chance for the federal administration to snatch the responsibilities and authority from the localities and the public since they are the primary bodies that control HS. Most of the internal administrative duties are mandated to the secretary of HS as the head of DHS. The assistant secretary firmly supports the secretary in their duties (Gross 2). Therefore, the management duties are significantly shared among the two secretaries who have subordinates to assist them in their duties.

Sources

DeMaso, William, The Relationship Between Homeland Defense and Homeland Security: U.S Northern Command’s Rubik’s Cube. A Research Report Submitted to Air Force Fellows, CADRE/AR in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements, (April, 2004), Page 1-46

Goss, Thomas. “” Who’s in Charge?” New Challenges in Homeland Defense and Homeland Security.” Homeland Security Affairs 2, Article 2 (April 2006). https://www.hsaj.org/articles/173

Johnson, Justin, 2017 NDAA: Define the Goldwater-Nichols Problem Before Trying to Solve It, Issue Brief; The Heritage Foundation. No. 4593, July 12th, 2016. Page 1-3.