Reform of the Internal Security law: a project that only seems to convince its authors

Just as it happened with the General D’Amicofirst guest speaker in the cycle of information meetings held around the project that modifies the internal security law, and, later, the former minister of defense Horacio Jaunarena, Paleo was forceful in maintaining that the legislative initiative promoted by the executive was unnecessary.

In a first approximation, Lieutenant General Paleo maintained that beyond the geographical origin of the threat, the most relevant thing to determine the level of violence necessary to neutralize the threat must be related to its intensity. As an example, he cited private army companies that deploy a lot of fire intensity but do not have any state representation. In that sense, its definition moves away from the still current decree 727/2006, which maintains that for the use of the military instrument the threat must be of state origin.

In the same order of things, he reported that the application of the principles of rationality, gradualness and proportionality were enough to determine that the deployment of federal security forces was enough to prosecute complex crimes, since the level of equipment and training were the most appropriate.

Regarding the latter, it should be added that The use of the armed forces represents the ultima ratio of the nation. In other words, represents the maximum expression of state violence and would mean, in this case, that all intermediate instances have been overwhelmed or surpassed.. This does not seem to be the case.

On the other hand, and sharing what Paleo said, the principle of use of the military instrument differs radically from that which puts the mechanism of the security forces into operation. On the one hand, for the military, the threat is neutralized by annihilating the enemy; on the other hand, for the security forces, the threat is dismantled and its perpetrators are brought before the jurisdictional authorities who will determine the disposition to follow with those who are criminally charged. responsible for any crime. In this case, Paleo was clear: For decisions like this, Argentina is still paying consequences. More words, less words: new threats, old doctrines.

In reference to the crimes of terrorism and drug trafficking, Paleo maintained that the correct deployment of security forces was more than enough to contain this type of threat. In this sense, it is worth highlighting that the success of this type of operations will be tied to four variables: adequate intelligence, technological development, high political will and coordination of state powers. Anchored to these variables, in Paleo’s words, will be the anticipation factor as a substantive and relevant element, diametrically opposed to the reactive factor proposed by the project promoted by the ministers. Patricia Bullrich and Luis Petri.

On the other hand, the strongest arguments put forward by the ministers are related to the operations to saturate troops on the ground (with a deterrent effect). It is worth saying that In a resolution issued, timely, by the UN, it was observed that the ideal number of police officers per inhabitant should be 264/100,000 inhabitants; Argentina today has 614/100,000 inhabitants. It is evident that the problem is not the number of troops, but the absence of planning of prevention operations and adequate intelligence, in short: the anticipation factor.

At the end of his speech, Paleo also maintained that in budgetary terms, the involvement of the military in security matters would serve as a distraction for the meager defense budget, which this year would not exceed 0.4% of GDP. In this way, on the other hand, military capacity would be reduced in its primary responsibilities and which are provided for in article 2 of law 23,554. Finally, he maintained that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not a hypothesis of conflict in Argentina, but rather it is a material reality, it is a latent conflict, since the latter illegitimately occupies an insular part of our national territory.

Some approximations

The push for the project to modify the internal security law does not seem to find many voices of support in the field of defense, from the three speakers who spoke at the National Defense Commission it was possible to reconstruct that the arguments against the approval are coincidental and lapidary. This reform is unnecessary.

In that sense, everyone agrees that the Executive, currently, has the tools, if needed, to use the military instrument in combat operations within the national territory (article 32, Law 24,059). It happens that For this, the prior dictation of the state of siege is required. with the political and judicial consequences that this entails.

In other words, this would transfer those responsibilities to the military who intervene in violent actions within the national territory. The military cadres deployed on the ground will bear the blame of those leaders who mediate issues as delicate as security for political purposes and with marked ideological biases.

The impulse of the ministers Bullrich and Petri seems to lose the support of the rest of the political arc, which no longer only speaks of the democratic consensus as a determining factor for the rejection of the project, but the arguments find ties to the doctrine of employment, equipment, responsibilities primaries of the military instrument and national defense budget.

However, they find some supportive voices in constitutionalists and men of law with strictly normative arguments.

In times of gestures and interactions of social networks as incidentally strong vectors in political decisions, it is necessary to indicate that the regulatory triad that orders security, defense and intelligence maintains in a state of balance a mechanism that works, with correctable flaws, but that provides certainty and predictability. Essential requirements that provide solidity to state and long-term policies such as these matters demand.

Regarding this, and given the arguments expressed by the defenders of the project regarding the age of the questioned norms (1992), it is worth quoting the Dr. Anzelini who maintains that the United States maintains a rule (Posse Comitatus Act), approved on June 18, 1878, that establishes limits on the Armed Forces and the National Guard from exercising powers inherent to public order forces, such as the police , in non-federal jurisdictions within the national territory of the United States. In this case, it seems that the example of the northern country does not count.

In summary, it can be inferred that the modification of this norm would imply intervening in the entire regulatory plexus that governs national defense, internal security and intelligence. The normative contents are not dogmatic, since political discussion finds in the legislative power the appropriate environment for this purpose. However, This should not serve a reactive purpose to specific situations, or to demands from social networks, but rather respond to planning that addresses the entire problem in a comprehensive and responsible manner..