American National Police

I think I may be thinking about something different than most of the rest of you guys when I see the words "National Police". Whereas most of you seem to be talking about an organization embodying the FBI, DEA, BATF, Secret Service and so on in one whole, I was envisioning something more like the Japanese National Police (for example), which provides standard local law-enforcement, uniformed beat-cop services in addition to all the other things you've been discussing.

Or how about this? What if a national police force were set up to patrol the U.S. Highway system, and later on the Interstate system?

-Joe-
 
I think I may be thinking about something different than most of the rest of you guys when I see the words "National Police". Whereas most of you seem to be talking about an organization embodying the FBI, DEA, BATF, Secret Service and so on in one whole, I was envisioning something more like the Japanese National Police (for example), which provides standard local law-enforcement, uniformed beat-cop services in addition to all the other things you've been discussing.

Or how about this? What if a national police force were set up to patrol the U.S. Highway system, and later on the Interstate system?

-Joe-

Considering that Japan is slightly smaller than California, and that the US is large enough to put the entire EU in it twice with room left over, the size alone would make this a big "no".
 
That's not true. Not since 2004, anyway.
Ripped it from the CIA factbook, though I suppose that it could use a different definition for what constitutes a European Member State than what we/you use.
And what about the Russian example raised above?
You mean a secret police group? Were it not for the fact that pre-Civil War, the South couldn't/wouldn't even run a proper post office, I might agree more. I suppose, though, that if the post-war were a good deal worse, you could have a secret police to ferret out/arrest those who try to resist the government by force.
 
The reason it cannot be a single police for the entire nation is due to such an action being unconstitutional. We have state police because the government is not allowed to be in charge of the state law enforcement. A combined Federal police force is allowed due to the very definition of the Federal Government.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Cheka was created after revolution (the tsarist analogue was Ohranka (Охранка)) to deal with contra-revolution.
In USSR there was the one police force, no locale ones.

Nitpick: It's Ochrana (or Okhrana in the English transcription).

OW..no please commissar, no more...OW, OW, please, stop, I swear I'll get it right next...OW...no, wait, please, commissar, not my family, they've done nothing...please
 
I've often wondered why none of the presidents have ever combined the various federal 'police' agencies into one... it seems to me that it'd be more efficient... would it be so bad to have the FBI, DEA, BATF, and SS all under one roof? Is there some overwhelming reason not to do so?
 
I've often wondered why none of the presidents have ever combined the various federal 'police' agencies into one... it seems to me that it'd be more efficient... would it be so bad to have the FBI, DEA, BATF, and SS all under one roof? Is there some overwhelming reason not to do so?

Pissing contest. Each department has its own head, and as such a great deal of autonomy. Add to that the general American bias to large government enforcement and you get the image of what is so difficult.

My largest problem is about how much is wasted in manpower, talent, and money. FBI, ATF, DEA all have assualt teams, investigation, crime lab, and pretty much what everyone else has. By combining it one would have all information in a single area, no need to check with others before launching an assualt on a drug lab.
 
Pissing contest. Each department has its own head, and as such a great deal of autonomy. Add to that the general American bias to large government enforcement and you get the image of what is so difficult.

My largest problem is about how much is wasted in manpower, talent, and money. FBI, ATF, DEA all have assualt teams, investigation, crime lab, and pretty much what everyone else has. By combining it one would have all information in a single area, no need to check with others before launching an assualt on a drug lab.

I think another reason for the numerous distinct agencies and institutions has to do with concerns over civil liberties.
 
Pissing contest. Each department has its own head, and as such a great deal of autonomy. Add to that the general American bias to large government enforcement and you get the image of what is so difficult.

My largest problem is about how much is wasted in manpower, talent, and money. FBI, ATF, DEA all have assualt teams, investigation, crime lab, and pretty much what everyone else has. By combining it one would have all information in a single area, no need to check with others before launching an assualt on a drug lab.

granted, you'd have a lot of people arguing against it, but is there a good reason not to do it?
 
Except for potential power abuse, you mean?

would it be worse than any of the other secretaries in the Cabinet... the Sec. of Defense and the Sec. of State have a lot of power too.... a Sec. of Federal Police (or something like that) wouldn't be any better or worse...

it seems to me that the potential for much greater efficiency would be worth the effort to do it...
 
Doesn't it depend on the POD? Today, you couldn't, what with Hoover, Ruby Ridge, Waco, even Katrina. Recall, tho, DEA, ATF, &c are all quite recent creations. Suppose, instead, you go back to, say, 1865-1870. OTL, Lincoln has just been assassinated, there are crim gangs running wild in the West, crossing state lines (was flight across state lines a crime then?), & State A is refusing to turn them over to State B 'cause they've done nothing wrong in State A. (And didn't JWB flee across state lines OTL?) So somebody says, we need a federal agency to get a handle on this situation. Somebody proposes Treasury, which has already responsibility for the $, which is federal/interstate. Somebody else suggests the AG, fed-lev officer responsible for law. I'm not sure the AGO could do it (recall, until around 1890 OTL, the AGO wasn't much more than a closet in the basement of a DC office building.:eek:). Also, I'm not sure a "dept of justice" even existed yet; this might be its official creation. As Narc Div grows (Prohibition), ATF is needed, so on, these fns get folded into "Natl Bureau of Enforcement". And, note, it's not responsible for state law; it's only empowered if fed law is broken, so NBE couldn't bust the Hell's Angels for a grocery store robbery, or even a murder, unless they crossed state lines in committing it (tho there's an argument they're a national org, so NBE might...).
 
Considering that Japan is slightly smaller than California, and that the US is large enough to put the entire EU in it twice with room left over, the size alone would make this a big "no".

*Coughrcmpcough*

And Canada in practical terms is smaller than the US, sure; but from 1880 or so on to about 1900 the NWMP ran the west, which before (and even after) the CPR came through was bloody enourmous. And they did it from horseback.

So don't say the size makes it impossible. There are lots of reasons this might not be plausible; a lot of them have been outlined above. But size isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
*Coughrcmpcough*

And Canada in practical terms is smaller than the US, sure; but from 1880 or so on to about 1900 the NWMP ran the west, which before (and even after) the CPR came through was bloody enourmous. And they did it from horseback..

So don't say the size makes it impossible. There are lots of reasons this might not be plausible; a lot of them have been outlined above. But size isn't one of them.

Quite true.
 

wormyguy

Banned
The reason why the CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, and Secret Service are not unified under one roof, is that they are designed to have some overlap and conflict. By doing this, they will monitor each other as best they can to make sure that no one group violates too many civil liberties or gains undue influence over American society. They will inadvertently self-regulate, and prevent anything even remotely reaching KGB-esque power, where it could literally install and remove heads of state at will, from occuring.

The Federal Marshals are a unique case in that they are also under the jurisdiction of Congress, as well as the Executive Branch. Thus, if a member of the Executive Branch commits a Federal crime (or doesn't), Congress has the authority to have him arrested. Recently, for instance, the Democrats in Congress threatened to "sic the Marshals" on Alberto Gonzales if he didn't resign from the Justice Department.
 
The Federal Marshals are a unique case in that they are also under the jurisdiction of Congress, as well as the Executive Branch. Thus, if a member of the Executive Branch commits a Federal crime (or doesn't), Congress has the authority to have him arrested. Recently, for instance, the Democrats in Congress threatened to "sic the Marshals" on Alberto Gonzales if he didn't resign from the Justice Department.

Too bad they didn't have the nerve to sic 'em on W., for lying to Congress (which I understand is a crime...) & getting the country into a quagmire in Iraq. Of course, how many Congressmen wanted it, too...?
 
Top