You’re a Coastie! Duh! That makes even more sense. Sorry, you mentioned the ranks and the boats and I just assumed “Navy.” (You do, after all, share ranks and the whole “boat thing” with the Navy, so I think I can be forgiven that.) And I know in recent years training is starting to diversify, but in my experience very few individuals (from any service) know how to handle shotguns, other than trained Masters-at-Arms. So I saw “shotgun” and came to what seemed to be a logical supposition. But I digress! I am well aware of the Coast Guard’s contribution to civilization as we know it! For example, somewhere out there is at least one CG Petty Officer whose OIC received a letter from yours truly congratulating him on a mission well-done. (Dunno if it had any help on his career—but I hope so.) There’s a station not too far from where I live & used to work, and the local Commander would sometimes take our folks out on cruises on the cutter. Incidentally, while I am ranting about all the positive things to say about the Coast Guard—I can declare with confidence: All else being equal, I would generally find the average Coastie better able to take on the task described in your “Mr DEA” scenario than the average Squid/Sailor. That being said, your training on heavy weapons, blue-water submarines, and Aircraft Load Masters leaves something to be desired‼! (ha ha – obscure insider joke alert)
OK, back to the task at hand. One of the principals by which I live is “never listen to criticism from someone who doesn’t love you.” So let me say this with love—I think some of you may be over-thinking the issue. Not in any sense do I say this to seem in any way mean or superior. I mean, for example—by reading the preceding paragraph and perhaps some other stuff I have written, you (may) leave with the impression that my job was somehow super important or glamorous or what have-you. Perish the thought. Sure, I have done a lot of things that, say, 99.998% of people in the military will never get to do—but to me it was just a job. If I could go into details (which I cannot, and will not), you would immediately think: “Oh, OF COURSE the government has people that do that, and OF COURSE there is a very good reason why he doesn’t go into details.” (The first time you see TOP SECRET information it is exciting; the second time you see TOP SECRET information it is tedious and boring, just part of the work day.) But that is also the point. If I haven’t lost you yet—stay with me.
Going back to Ranger Jeff’s scenario. What is being described is a situation where the legalities matter a lot less than the “what would be a good idea to do right now to avoid not getting shot” type of decisions. If you think about it for a second, it is easy—even trivially easy—to think of a situation where the LtJg in Ranger Jeff’s scenario would have had authorization to cross that barricade—even if Ranger Jeff, his cohorts, and Mr DEA didn’t know about it. For example, that particular LtJg could have been employed by the base commander to “red team” or test security measures upon his installation. In such a scenario, that LtJg would have recourse to say—I cannot be prosecuted under the UCMJ or any other provision of law, because I was engaging in lawful activity, duly appointed to do so by lawful authority.
That could very well be true—this particular LtJg, in this scenario, however, may not have the opportunity to make such an argument. The UCMJ and the law would simply not come into play if that LtJG was a corpse. That is, even if the LtJg had lawful authority to come into that Restricted Area, Ranger Jeff would still have been in the right if he had exercised Deadly Force. Do you catch my drift? If Ranger Jeff had used deadly force, no one could have prosecuted him for hit. In fact, what he did was very smart—he confirmed his orders with his superior officer. It NEVER hurts to do this! Especially when you are asked to do something potentially radical—such as shoot a fellow American! That way, if something happens—you have an immediate “out.” The officer then has no defense, but to say, “Yes, deadly force was authorized.”
But that is completely, utterly besides the point‼! I am guessing that at NO POINT did Ranger Jeff or anyone else wake up that morning and go “You know what? You know what I want to do with my life??? I want to throw away my military career, be thought of as a pariah, etc. etc. by killing a fellow American! A fellow servicemember!” The answer, should, OBVIOUSLY, be NO. The “deadly force authorization” may get you out of prosecution, but it doesn’t save you from being thought of as a dick. Ranger Jeff, it seems to me, acted exactly in accord with the circumstances—he had deadly force authorization, and was also smart enough to know better than to exercise it. Do you catch my drift?
I have been in similar situations to the one described by Ranger Jeff—I mean, I have been in that situation from several different angles. The difference between me and the LtJg would be (for example) that unlike most bullshitters, I could back my bullshit up. But as an experienced professional, I also know better than to engage in activity which will get me killed.
Let me follow this to a logical absurdity. I do mean just that—something really illogical, radical, just for illustrative purposes. Assume everything about Ranger Jeff’s scenario to be true, for the purposes of illustration. Say it just so happened that I was the NCIS Agent (or… does the Coast Guard have its own Special Agents, besides the IG folks I mean? Or do you come under the FBI catch-all? Oh, something to look into when I have more time. Unless somebody will just tell me.) Sorry, got off track there. Just trying to be funny while making a serious point. Assume I was the “duly-appointed special agent with criminal justice authority over this particular installation.” Assume Ranger Jeff did something really bad, blatantly against the law—because this is for illustrative purposes, let us say that he stole a dragon egg. I, as Special Agent So-And-So, may be completely within my legal rights to go and arrest Ranger Jeff right then and there—right there on the dock, in this supposedly restricted area, etc. etc. However, as an experienced professional, I would NEVER EVER BE STUPID ENOUGH TO DO SUCH A THING! (It might even get me fired—not for breaking the law, but for poor exercise of my official discretion!) If it were me—in such a scenario—I would inform Ranger Jeff’s commander, probably the SAIC of the local DEA office, Provost Marshall, etc.—and prepare a team to swoop in right after Ranger Jeff turned in his weapons at the armory. Arrest him at the dock?!? No way‼
Incidentally, for humor purposes—let me add that it would be entirely possible for me to arrange for the foregoing to occur—even the stupid, absurd, dragon-egg part. (If you don’t think the US Code can be abused to the point where you could potentially charge someone with having a dragon’s egg—at least to the point where you get to a preliminary hearing, where a judge throws all of it out—then you aren’t a lawyer, haven’t read the US Code, or both). There would be consequences, too. The likely result of such a course of action would be (1) Federal prison for me, and (2) A substantial cash settlement for Ranger Jeff. But, you know, it is “theoretically” doable.
OK, hopefully you had a little bit of a laugh at that one. Allow me to summarize my Doctoral Dissertation on Forcing a Safeguard:
(1) Yes, Forcing a Safeguard is a crime described in the UCMJ, the ultimate penalty for which is death.
(2) The UCMJ is ONLY applicable to (A) A crime committed while in the military, and (B) To an individual currently in the military. Ever wonder why they keep folks in the military, but reduce them to the “lowest enlisted rank” while “forfeiting pay”? I mean, doesn’t that seem like a stupid thing to do… keep someone on the payroll, but deny them all money and benefits normally associated with being on the payroll??? The answer is: The moment an individual is separated from the military, the military no longer has any jurisdiction over them. I believe I made reference to the North Korean defectors—US servicemembers who defected to North Korea during the Korean War. The military actually made the mistake of discharging them from the service in abstentia. As a result, years later, when they wanted to come back to the United States, it was discovered they could not be prosecuted under the UCMJ. Another, more first-hand story: We had a study that was done that asked the question, Of All Individuals Currently in the Military, But Had Originally Been Inducted through the Draft, What Rank Are They Now? The study itself was interesting, but the more interesting part was an outlier: There was some dude, who, circa 2001, had originally been drafted into the US Marine Corps, was still in the Marine Corps as a… E-1?!?!? What strange animal was this??? What government madness?? Well, turns out that this particular individual had done something drastic—I do not remember exactly what, but I believe it involved a 15-year prison term. Per the UCMJ, he had to be kept “on the books” so to speak. So his actual “sentence” was to be reduced in rank to E-1, forfeit all pay & allowances, serve XX years in a Federal penitentiary, followed by a dishonorable discharge!
(3) So long as “Forcing a Safeguard” is in the UCMJ, it is still against the UCMJ (technically). However, in modern times, the chances of an actual prosecution for “Forcing a Safeguard” are exceedingly slim. In fact, the chances of such a prosecution being successful are called into doubt—for a number of practical reasons. For example, it would have to be proven that (A) A proper command authority had issued the safeguard and (B) That the command authority had, in fact, meant to issue was is meant by “a safeguard” and not simply a run-of-the-mill, no-boys-in-the-girls-bathroom sort of restriction, and © That the individual being prosecuted should have known (as part of their official duties under the UCMJ) of the safeguard.
(4) I mean this totally seriously—even if all of the technical criteria of “forcing a safeguard” are met, you would really have to find a prosecutor with a real burr up his butt to try such a stunt! He would risk professional ridicule. Seriously! And why would he ever do such a thing? As I have explained above, and in my previous posting, if I am Mr. DEA, I don’t need to resort to the concept of “Forcing a Safeguard.” Seriously—this is what it comes down to: The McCarran Internal Security Act gives me (and the base Commander, and whomever else needs to be involved) all the authority we need. I am not out to kill Americans—I want my 100 bales of cannabis to arrive at their destination intact, so I can go home to my wife. I probably know better than you do that 100 bales of cannabis will probably do less harm than a year’s worth of Tylenol.
So there you have it—while we may imagine scenarios in which “Forcing a Safeguard” may occur, barring a revolution or some crazy political upheaval—I would not put my money on there ever being a prosecution for such under the UCMJ ever again, from this day forward.