Irish military's role against crime/terrorism

paddyman

2 parts to this thread.

1st is the question that i hope to find out is what is our militarys current role in fighting crime/terrorism in this country. Do they activly take part in fighting drugs/terrorism etc or is done completely by the garda?

2nd To open a debate of what are the pros/cons, dangers/benefits of our military activly ridding our country from problems like these?

Nuttzz

it is a garda role to fight crime and also to be in the front line to prosecute and disrupt terrorists. Army intelligence works with the gardai in monitoring international terrorists who may come here.

The army have no role in fighting gangland criminals unless you want to do away with due process and just have them put up against the wall and shot, nice idea as it is it isnt very practical

Zombrex

paddyman wrote:

2 parts to this thread.

1st is the question that i hope to find out is what is our militarys current role in fighting crime/terrorism in this country. Do they activly take part in fighting drugs/terrorism etc or is done completely by the garda?

2nd To open a debate of what are the pros/cons, dangers/benefits of our military activly ridding our country from problems like these?

The only really role the army have is to guard things. For example, they will escort money from banks, or provide protection for heads of state.

As Nuttzz says they will also pass on intelligence to the Gardai.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ridding"

There isn't very much more the Army can do against criminals that the Guards can't do. Unless, against as Nuttzz says, you think shootings are in order. In fact the Army is not trained for urban policing (which is why the US and British Armys are having a hard time in Iraq acting as police while also fighting a war) and they would probably be more of a hinderence than a help.

Cantab.

Whilst the Irish defence forces do have a certain level of capability, I would question the capability in certain areas.

I think we need the capability to:

1) Scramble a fighter jet within 15 minutes anywhere in the country

There was recently an incident in Greece where F16 fighters were ordered to accompany a civil aircraft that got into difficulty. Ireland is a soft targe when it comes to air security.

2) Mobilise a helicopter rescue team to any location in Ireland within 30 minutes

At the moment there is a British private subcontracted company who do all of Ireland's search and rescue using 3 helicopters which is a national disgrace and an insult to the Air Force.

A couple of years ago a Canadia submarine got into trouble and had to be rescued by the British military cos we didn't have the resources - another disgrace.

3) Tying in with 2 above, the defence forces should be able to drop teams of anti-terrorist ranger units anywhere in the country in reasonable time. There should also be the capability to run 5 or 6 such teams concurrently.

4) Navy: There are lots of ships in the navy, but many of them are old and outdated. High precision radar technology needs to be employed along with constant aerial/sattelite surveillance of all our waters for the monitoring of every single boat that enters the country. Again, technology needs to be updated.

Disclaimer: all the above is a rant: I do though think the army should be given more respect and given the tools they need to do their job with pride. Half-hearted responses to the needs of the military from government are all too common. An efficent military cannot operate under such conditions.

Aidan1

British private subcontracted company who do all of Ireland's search and rescue using 3 helicopters which is a national disgrace and an insult to the Air Force.

(a) CHC are Canadian
(b) There are 6 S-61s based here
(c) We don't have an Air Force

A couple of years ago a Canadia submarine got into trouble and had to be rescued by the British military cos we didn't have the resources - another disgrace.

LE Niamh was on the scene and rendered assistance.

The points about "scrambling a fighter jet" are ill informed. It would take expenditure of the order of several billion to get to a point where such a capacity could be reached. And no, 'a few second hand F-16s' would not cut it, nor would 'some Hawks, L39s or Alpha Jets'.

Back in the real world, we are not a target for terrorism, more pressing is the possibility of someone using our airports as an access point for acts of terrorism, either in the UK or the continental EU. The RAF have aircraft (EF Typhoons now IIRC) on call in case of a problem like this. We have much mroe pressing requirements for funding.

constant aerial/sattelite surveillance of all our waters for the monitoring of every single boat that enters the country

Leaving aside the vastness of our waters, all fishing vessels of any size are required to be equipped with a VMS devise to enable tracking, and the AC have two CN235s that spend their lives patrolling out territorial waters. Its not enough, but its a start.

lostexpectation

so er what do the army do at the border?

gandalf

Moved to the Military forum.

paddyman

Well to respond, i wasn't thinking along the lines of lining people up against walls as such but could they have a more active role.

I.E this massive surveilence operation i keep hearing is going to take place where massive man-power will be used to tail dealers/gangs 24hrs a day, this is something the army could easily be trained to do and report back to garda. I mean they are there being paid anyways so why not use them and free up garda for other matters.

Or putting armed personal to protect high value deliveries like allied brinks which are constantly being attacked with premission to defend it.

Or searching ships/cargo coming into the country at the docks for illegal goods/drugs ETC which they hold for garda to deal with, surely this requires massive man power to do which the millitary could do well.



Also what role do the navy have in stopping drug ships? just for confirmation im sure they do patrol the islands waters stopping/searching suspect ships when they see fit or do they need to get permission before boarding??

philologos

The Army should have no part in stopping crime, that should be down to the gardaí. We need a group thats like Britains SO19 here just incase we did have a terror scare.

Alkers

Jakkass wrote:

The Army should have no part in stopping crime, that should be down to the gardaí. We need a group thats like Britains SO19 here just incase we did have a terror scare.

The ARW handle all terrorism afaik and if that's the case we're in capable hands.

Bam Bam

paddyman wrote:

Well to respond, i wasn't thinking along the lines of lining people up against walls as such but could they have a more active role.

I.E this massive surveilence operation i keep hearing is going to take place where massive man-power will be used to tail dealers/gangs 24hrs a day, this is something the army could easily be trained to do and report back to garda. I mean they are there being paid anyways so why not use them and free up garda for other matters.

Or putting armed personal to protect high value deliveries like allied brinks which are constantly being attacked with premission to defend it.

Or searching ships/cargo coming into the country at the docks for illegal goods/drugs ETC which they hold for garda to deal with, surely this requires massive man power to do which the millitary could do well.



Also what role do the navy have in stopping drug ships? just for confirmation im sure they do patrol the islands waters stopping/searching suspect ships when they see fit or do they need to get permission before boarding??

The Army are paid to Soldier, NOT TO POLICE.

The Army do perform cash escorts.

Customs search ships in dock for drugs and other illegal articles.

The Naval Service can search any ship, at any time they wish, inside of Irish waters

babybundy

they way i look at it is the gardai uphold the law the army will enforce it plan and simple

Philistine

babybundy wrote:

they way i look at it is the gardai uphold the law the army will enforce it plan and simple

They army don't enforce the law !!! Plain and simple !!!

iFight

paddyman wrote:

this is something the army could easily be trained to do and report back to garda

Why bother training the army to do so when the gardai are trained/paid to do it?

Seems a bit of a waste of time tbh

babybundy

Philistine wrote:

They army don't enforce the law !!! Plain and simple !!!

if they were brought out on the streets they would enforce it it wouldn't be done as gentlely as the gardai

skink

babybundy wrote:

they way i look at it is the gardai uphold the law the army will enforce it plan and simple

no the gardai uphold and enforce the law, the army are sometimes called in as an aid to the civil power(atcp) for example mayday riots etc. We are not a military state so hopefully we will never see the army policing the streets.

babybundy

skink wrote:

We are not a military state so hopefully we will never see the army policing the streets.

ya i agree with that statement

testicle

skink wrote:

We are not a military state so hopefully we will never see the army policing the streets.

Neither was Northern Ireland...

Philistine

babybundy wrote:

if they were brought out on the streets they would enforce it it wouldn't be done as gentlely as the gardai

Thats a very big "if". And one I'm sure nobody wants to see..the army included.

Hagar

The Gendarmerie is actually a branch of the French Army. They do a decent enough job. That said they are armed to the teeth so it's not quite the same.


NMM

babybundy

i never said i wanna see that

BendiBus

paddyman wrote:

I mean they are there being paid anyways so why not use them and free up garda for other matters.

You seem to suggest the Army doesn't have anything else to do

paddyman

I dont mean this in the sence that the army has nothing better to do,just that including reserve/PDF has over 20k people.

We all know the gardai are understaffed/overstretched alot of the time and to do some of the roles/jobs i described takes alot of manpower. If the garda are to do them better it comes down to taken personel from other roles leaving them understaffed.

With that many people during peace times could/should they free up 3/4k for the personel intensive roles i mentioned.

babybundy

ya i agree with that get them to do admin

yomchi

testicle wrote:

Neither was Northern Ireland...

OMG, lol the North at one time was the most fortified military zone in Europe. Being under British Rule meant the soverign ruler was Elizabeth, who is head of Britains armed forces. It was very much a military state :rolleyes:

Hagar

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. I assume you ment Queen Elizabeth II.;)

Incidentally QEII is also the head of the Chruch of England, would that have made Northern Ireland a "Church State" on the lines of the Vatican, Swiss Guard and all, just because she was Sovereign?

NMM

yomchi

Hagar wrote:

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. I assume you ment Queen Elizabeth II.;)

Incidentally QEII is also the head of the Chruch of England, would that have made Northern Ireland a "Church State" on the lines of the Vatican, Swiss Guard and all, just because she was Sovereign?

NMM

Hagar, let me quote you the title used by the stormont government in 1970 -

"A protestant parliamant for a protestant people"

You make your own mind up

Hagar

What was the position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution of Ireland in 1970?
Personally I would expect a protestant people to elect a protestant parliment.

NMM

This is straying into politics here and that is the domain of another forum. If you wish to discuss the military tactics of the conflict or the weapons used fire away, no pun intended, otherwise you are getting out of bounds for this forum.

Hagar (Mod Mode ON);)

yomchi

Hagar wrote:

What was the position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution of Ireland in 1970?
Personally I would expect a protestant people to elect a protestant parliment.

NMM

This is straying into politics here and that is the domain of another forum. If you wish to discuss the military tactics of the conflict or the weapons used fire away, no pun intended, otherwise you are getting out of bounds for this forum.

Hagar (Mod Mode ON);)

Thats fine Hagar, I'll just answer your question and leave it at that. Of course a protestant people would vote for a protestant parliament. Catholic Nationalists were unable to vote for their candidates due to unionist gerrymandering.
The position of the Catholic church, is irrelevant. They are a blight on Irish society. The Irish Constitution was introduced in 1937.

Thats me done