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-
That's not true. Not since 2004, anyway. And what about the Russian example raised above?the US is large enough to put the entire EU in it twice with room left over
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.That's not true. Not since 2004, anyway.
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.And what about the Russian example raised above?
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).
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.
Except for potential power abuse, you mean?
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.
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.