Military Authority & UFO Incidents

I thought this post is worth a separate thread. I hope there are some legal heads out there that can comment.

Something that always intrigues me with incidents that happen in what is essentially public space. People, and more importantly journalists, sometimes claim that the "military" prevented them from accessing the area.

How do they do that? Certainly in Australia I am familiar with the laws governing military authority over civilians and civilian locations. There basically isn't any. When I was a member it was pointed out to us that under our constitution our military have absolutely no authority domestically or over civilians, except in very extreme national crises. In other words when you on the street, not on base, or not fighting a foreign invader you have no more authority than any civilian.

Of course they can restrict access to Federal institutions like military bases but that is under separate laws (and normal property laws.)

I know that if a soldier stepped in front of me with an assault rifle (v hypothetical because it could not happen legally) trying to prevent me from access a public space I would walk around him asking if really thought the murder charges from firing would be worth it.

The civilian police on the other hand do have such authority but they are usually answerable to state governments and so it is easy to access any info they gather via state political institutions.

Sorry for going on about it but this is a genuine legal query. I just don't understand how the US military can "take over" a civilian area( eg Kecksburg PA) without an almighty stink from local politicians and legal ramifications for the officers involved.

That's a real valid point you make. However in the U.S., and I'd presume it wouldn't be much different in Australia either, all "they" have to do is throw in the phrase, "matter of national security", and civilian rights are trumped. It gets real messy from there, as far as liberty is concerned.

Well, legal eagles, what do you have to say? What gives the USA military the rights in UFO cases, and please dont use the blanket excuse of "Its a matter of national security."

Another good point rangersdad. "National Security" does not cut it at all legally.

If it was used on the spot there would have to be inquiries up the whazoo afterwards to determine why such authority was used. Particularly if it was used to subvert the actions of civilian authorities such as Police.

To reiterate; in a public space a civilian copper has far more authority than a military officer (who has none, zero, nix). So if the police had cordoned off an incident scene and a military truck turned up the Police officer would wait until he received word from his command structure before allowing access. Not as is often portrayed in UFO stories where some unidentified military officer turns up and begins ordering local police about.

reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin


Go ahead and try to go around a military security police armed with an assault rifle. I can guarantee they are quite serious when doing their jobs and would not hesitate to take you out. Do not get in the way as you will become a casualty. The military does not play when it comes to doing their national duty.

If it is a craft of unknown origin or a secret military project, they will recover it and keep it from the press.

Federal and National Security trumps any state or local authority. It is that plain and simple.

Federal and National Security trumps any state or local authority. It is that plain and simple.

That is correct, it's in our national constitution. It is a Federal power and trumps State power. Granted, the public can always complain, demand a Congressional investigation, etc., but it's all after the fact. During the event or crisis, those pointing the guns decide what is and what is not a matter of national security.

In addition, they're likely to use a cover story that would pose a danger to the public such as a gas or chemical leak, etc. to both force cooperation, and obscure any true agenda...and this is whether alien or just security-related.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by Gazrok]

Federal and National Security trumps any state or local authority. It is that plain and simple.

That is interesting thank you. I presume you are from the US. Would explain the blase way people state that the "military took control."

It doesn't in Australia. If the military tried to stop a civilian going about their business with a loaded weapon, unless the enemy were actually shooting at you, then someone is going to court, and someone is going to lose their job. If they used, or even threatened to use, a loaded weapon then someone is going to gaol.

There is no hierarchy. The military literally have no status "on the street", or in the bush for that matter. I cannot imagine any policeman ceding control of any site to a military officer unless they could prove an object was their property.

OMG let the people decide what is "national security".

Can we please keep our shoes on at the airport? I mean really..

OMG let the people decide what is "national security".

At the border that is Customs job. Inside the country that is the job of civilian Federal Police. There is no role for military armed forces in national security inside a country, none at all.

Incidentally I am also disturbed at the "militarisation" of police in Australia, such as SOG (Special Operations Group: a sort of SWAT) in some states.

I think police, and civilian intelligence services (eg ASIO), do a pretty good job of securing our country but when the military tries its hand at civilian security it seems to blow up in their face (eg ASIS.)

reply to post by Gazrok


interdicting an area ` in the interest of national security ` is a lot easier to claim than actually impliment regardless of whoever has precedence .

` national security ` is not a magic wand that allows you to do ANYTHING -and it certainly does not sheild you from the consequences of your actions

even if you get your own way - and ` secure the scene ` for long enouth to ` do what you have to ` - you have to reliquish control at some point - and be answereable to multiple higher authorities for what you did

you correctly point out - that you can create a vacuum , forcing every one to investigate ` after the fact ` but investigate they will - leving no stone untruned

likewise a ` cover story ` which is a lie creates a hydra of people who should know , think they should know or want to know whats going on

and with every lie - you create 10 more questions - or have to draft another layer of people into the conspiracy - or exclude them for no good reason [ unless you tell another lie - then back to step one ]

yes - you may create a small bubble where you have carte blanche for a short time - but the fall out afterwards is likley to be more than you can handle

but all this is theory , bottom line can any one point to a historic incident where there is any signs of validity to the claim that ` the military took over ` ?

thats the best place to start - rather than discussing hypotheticals

If I recall correctly, since I am a civilian the military has NO authority over me at all (unless I were on a base of course). I have never been in the military nor do I have plans to join, so since I am a civilian and they can only give orders to those people in the military, well on their authority over me!!!!

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
It doesn't in Australia. If the military tried to stop a civilian going about their business with a loaded weapon, unless the enemy were actually shooting at you, then someone is going to court, and someone is going to lose their job. If they used, or even threatened to use, a loaded weapon then someone is going to gaol.

I understand what you mean despite the risk to your own safety.

Sure, you might think that it's legal for you to pass by an armed soldier who's telling you something contrary. In all liklihood, you'll be shot, maybe killed and the soldier will get off on some technicality that he was following orders. The person who gave the orders will not be punished.

I don't mean this to be off-topic: A friend of mine drove to the bushfire affected areas to offer his help with a certain service that he can provide. He was pretty much turned away by the police, from entering some areas, despite them being public roads and open spaces. We know the military was helping out with the bushfire relief efforts, so would it have been any different if a soldier told him to turn around and drive back?

Remember, it's your word against theirs and we can guess who the court will believe.

In Australia the civilian police are a different matter. They do have authority to secure public space and restrict access. That is their role in order to ensure "public safety." However they do not enjoy much protection from public scrutiny so when they do that, for example during the Bushfires, then they will be required at some point in the future to justify their actions publicly.

With reference to ignorant-ape's request for an example I refer to the incident which prompted my original post; The Kecksburg Crash.

A Mr John Murphy as an employee of the local radio station covered the incident claims he was an eye witness to the "Military sealing off the area, and banning all civilians from the scene and its immediate surroundings."

Linky

If he was a journalist why not just ignore the military? But as I now understand in the US there seems to be some kind of Federal/State hierarchy that means the military has some kind of authority over civilian police and civilians. That was the reason for my confusion.

At the border that is Customs job. Inside the country that is the job of civilian Federal Police. There is no role for military armed forces in national security inside a country, none at all.

Patriot Act...

Such actions could easily be done under the umbrella of counter-terrorism. Investigations done after the fact would run into the "need to know" roadblocks, etc.

And...then there's public safety... No role? What about the National Guard deployed after a Hurricane, etc. ? You could apply the same logic to a platoon sent in to secure the perimeter of a toxic gas leak (and the GIs would likely know no differently). After a retrieval's been done, they leave, return control to the Police, and either it's dismissed as a false alarm, or an actual crisis was created as a cover... It'd be extremely easy...given the right resources and secretive command chain.