text:
Flight to Varennes

The royal Flight to Varennes (Fuite à Varennes) during the night of 20–21 June 1791 was a significant event in the French Revolution in which King Louis XVI of France, Queen Marie Antoinette, and their immediate family unsuccessfully attempted to escape from Paris to Montmédy, where the King wished to initiate a counter-revolution by joining up with royalist troops. They escaped as far as the small town of Varennes-en-Argonne, where they were arrested after being recognized at their previous stop in Sainte-Menehould.

This incident was a turning point after which popular hostility towards the French monarchy as an institution, as well as towards the King and Queen as individuals, became much more pronounced. The King's attempted flight provoked charges of treason that ultimately led to his execution in 1793.

The escape failed due to a series of misadventures, delays, misinterpretations and poor judgments. The King's decisions on a number of matters, including the means and timing of the journey, allowed seemingly small matters to escalate. Furthermore, he overestimated popular support for the traditional monarchy, mistakenly believing only Parisian radicals supported the revolution and that the populace as a whole opposed it. He also mistakenly believed that he enjoyed particular favor with the peasantry and other commoners.

The King's flight was traumatic for France, inciting reactions ranging from anxiety to violence and panic. Everyone was aware that foreign intervention was imminent. The realization that the King had effectually repudiated the revolutionary reforms made up to that point came as a shock to people who had seen him as a well-intentioned monarch who governed as a manifestation of God's will. Republicanism quickly evolved from being merely a subject of coffee-house debate to the dominant ideal of revolutionary leaders.

The King's brother the Count of Provence also fled on the same night, by a different route. He successfully escaped, and spent the French Revolution in exile, later returning as King Louis XVIII.

Background
Louis XVI's indecisive response was one of the causes of the forcible transfer of the royal family from the Palace of Versailles to the Tuileries Palace in Paris on 6 October 1789 after the Women's March on Versailles. The relocation seemed to have emotionally paralyzed the King, which left many important decisions to the politically untrained queen. On 28 February 1791, while the Marquis de Lafayette was handling a conflict in Vincennes, hundreds of royalists came to the Tuileries to demonstrate in support of the royal family, only to be expelled from the palace by National Guards.

Objectives of flight
The intended goal of the unsuccessful flight was to provide the King with greater freedom of action and personal security than was possible in Paris. At Montmédy, General François Claude de Bouillé, the marquis de Bouillé, had concentrated a force of 10,000 regulars of the old royal army who were considered to still be loyal to the monarchy. De Bouillé himself had shown energy in suppressing a serious mutiny in Nancy in 1790. The troops under his command included two Swiss and four German mercenary regiments who were perceived as being more reliable in a time of general political unrest than their French counterparts. In a letter drafted for presentation to the Tagsatzung at Zurich, the royalist baron de Breteuil stated that "His Majesty desires to have such imposing forces at his disposition, that even the most audacious rebels will have no other option than to submit". The court expectation was that "numerous faithful subjects of all classes" would then rally to demand the restoration of the rights of the throne and that order would be restored without the need for civil war or foreign invasion.

The long-term political objectives of the royal couple and their closest advisors remain unclear. A detailed document entitled Declaration to the French People prepared by Louis for presentation to the National Constituent Assembly and left behind in the Tuileries indicates that his personal goal was a return to the legal revolution of summer 1789; he no longer rejected the abolition of orders, as in his Declaration of June 23, 1789, and he accepted civil equality. Private correspondence from Marie Antoinette takes a more reactionary line looking to a restoration of the old monarchy without concessions; though referring to pardons for all but the revolutionary leadership and the city of Paris "if it does not return to its old order".

The flight attempt
Prodded by the Queen, Louis committed himself and his family to a disastrous escape attempt from the capital to the eastern frontier on 21 June 1791. With the Dauphin's governess, the Marquise de Tourzel, taking on the role of a Russian baroness, the Queen and the King's sister Madame Élisabeth playing the roles of governess and nurse respectively, the King a valet, and the royal children her daughters, the royal family made their escape leaving the Tuileries Palace at about midnight. The escape was largely planned by the Queen's favourite, the Swedish Count Axel von Fersen and the Baron de Breteuil, who had garnered support from Swedish King Gustav III. Fersen had urged the use of two light carriages that could have made the 200-mile journey to Montmédy relatively quickly. This would have involved the splitting up of the royal family, however, thus Louis and Marie Antoinette decided on the use of a heavy and conspicuous coach drawn by six horses.

Unmasking and arrest
Due to the cumulative effect of slow progression, time miscalculations, lack of secrecy, and the need to repair broken coach traces, the royal family was thwarted in its escape attempt after leaving Paris. Louis himself chatted with peasants while horses were being changed at Fromentieres and Marie Antoinette gave silver dishes to a helpful local official at Chaintrix. At Châlons townspeople reportedly greeted and applauded the royal party. Finally, Jean-Baptiste Drouet, the postmaster of Sainte-Menehould, recognized the King from his portrait printed on an assignat in his possession. Seven detachments of cavalry posted along the intended route had been withdrawn or neutralized by suspicious crowds before the large and slow moving vehicle being used by the royal party had reached them. The King and his family were eventually arrested in the town of Varennes, 50 km (31 miles) from their ultimate destination, the heavily fortified royalist citadel of Montmédy.

Whether De Bouillé's army would have been numerous or reliable enough to change the direction of the revolution and preserve the monarchy can never be known.

Confinement to Tuileries Palace
When the royal family finally returned under guard to Paris, the revolutionary crowd met the royal carriage with uncharacteristic silence and consequently, complete shock rippled throughout the crowd at the sight of their king. The royal family was confined to the Tuileries Palace. From this point forward, the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic became an ever-increasing possibility. The credibility of the King as a constitutional monarch had been seriously undermined by the escape attempt.

After they returned, the National Constituent Assembly agreed that the King could be restored to power if he agreed to the constitution. However, various factions in Paris like the Cordeliers and the Jacobins disagreed, and this led to a protest at the Champ de Mars; the protest turned violent, resulting in the Champ de Mars Massacre.

From the autumn of 1791 on, the King tied his hopes of political salvation to the dubious prospects of foreign intervention. At the same time, he encouraged the Girondin faction in the Legislative Assembly in their policy of war with Austria, in the expectation that a French military disaster would pave the way for the restoration of his royal authority. Prompted by Marie Antoinette, Louis rejected the advice of the moderate constitutionalists, led by Antoine Barnave, to fully implement the Constitution of 1791, which he had sworn to maintain. He instead secretly committed himself to a policy of covert counter-revolution.

Abolishing the monarchy
The King's failed escape attempt alarmed many other European monarchs, who feared that the revolutionary fervor would spread to their countries and result in instability outside France. Relations between France and its neighbors, already strained because of the revolution, deteriorated even further with some foreign ministries calling for war against the revolutionary government.

The outbreak of the war with Austria in April 1792 and the publication of a manifesto by the Prussian commander, Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick, threatened the destruction of Paris if the safety of the royal family was again endangered. Upon hearing this, Parisian radicals stormed the Tuileries Palace on 10 August 1792. This was the event that sounded the death knell for the monarch.

This attack led in turn to the suspension of the King's powers by the Legislative Assembly and the proclamation of the First French Republic on 21 September. In November, proof of Louis XVI's secret dealings with the deceased revolutionary politician, Mirabeau, and of his counterrevolutionary intrigues with foreigners was found in a secret iron chest, the armoire de fer, in the Tuileries. It was now no longer possible to pretend that the reforms of the French Revolution had been made with the free consent of the King. Some Republicans called for his deposition, others for his trial for alleged treason and intended defection to the enemies of the French Nation. On 3 December, it was decided that Louis XVI, who together with his family had been imprisoned since August, should be brought to trial for treason. He appeared twice, on 11 and 23 December, before the National Convention.

Convicted, Louis was sent to the guillotine on 21 January 1793. Nine months later, Marie Antoinette was also convicted of treason, and was beheaded on 16 October. (She asked the prosecutor to kill her as well, as she couldn't "suffer for long").

title: Flight to Varennes


text:
Ferchar Fota

Ferchar Fota (Ferchar the Tall) (died c. 697) was probably king of the Cenél Loairn of Dál Riata, and perhaps of all Dál Riata. His father is named as Feredach mac Fergusa and he was said to be a descendant in the 6th generation of Loarn mac Eirc.

Ferchar is first reported in the Annals of Tigernach in 678, when he led the Cenél Loairn to defeat on Tiree against "the Britons", presumably those of Alt Clut. The battle is also reported by the Annals of Ulster, but Ferchar is not named. The second report of Ferchar is that of his death in 697.

Ferchar may have been king of Dál Riata from the 670s — the Duan Albanach assigns him a reign of 21 years — or he may have become king of Dál Riata only on the death of Domnall Donn in 696.

His sons Ainbcellach and Selbach were kings of Dál Riata.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ferchar Fota


text:
County administrative boards of Sweden

A county administrative board (länsstyrelse) is a Swedish Government Agency in each of the counties of Sweden, led by a vice-regal governor (landshövding) appointed by the government for a term of six years. The lists of gubernatorial officeholders, in most cases, stretches back to 1634 when the counties were created by Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna.

The main responsibilities of the county administrative board is to coordinate the development of the county in line with goals set in national politics. In each county there is also a County Council which is a policy-making assembly elected by the residents of the county.

The capital of a county is in Swedish called residensstad ("residence city") because it is the seat of residence of the governor.

title: County administrative boards of Sweden


text:
Vladislav Listyev

Vladislav (Vlad) Nikolayevich Listyev (Владисла́в Никола́евич Листьев; May 10, 1956 – March 1, 1995) was a Soviet, later Russian journalist and head of the ORT TV Channel (now government-owned Channel One).

Career
Listyev was arguably the most popular journalist and TV anchor in Russia (he remains well remembered years after his death), and was a key force in bringing the voice of democracy to Russian television. Listyev first appeared on television as one of the hosts of a progressive and successful show Vzglyad (Glance or Outlook) in the late 1980s. Vzglyad was an outstanding show for that time, after the premiere many people thought it was allowed on TV only by some mistake of censors. The program was ‘like a fresh wind’, it raised the questions that never before were allowed for public discussion, such as Stalin's Great Purge, death penalty, reconstruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The program was watched weekly by as many as 100 million people. The other anchors were Alexander Lyubimov, Alexander Politkovsky, Dmitry Zakharov (journalist), Artyom Borovik and Evgeny Dodolev.

He was also the first host of the Russian version of Wheel of Fortune, which became popular. Following the success of Vzglyad, Listyev and his colleagues founded a TV company VID (Vzglyad i Drugiye—The View and the Others) that would produce programming for the First Channel of Central Television, the main TV channel in the Soviet Union (later called Ostankino and ORT). With VID, Listyev started a number of new TV projects —Pole Chudes ("A Field of Wonders", the Russian version of Wheel of Fortune), Ugadai melodiu ("Guess the melody", the Russian version of Name That Tune), Tema ("The Theme"), and Chas Pik ("The Rush Hour"). In 1995, Listyev moved from VID to ORT, where he was appointed director of the channel. One of Listyev's very first moves as director was to order a temporary stop to all advertising, in effect excluding all unauthorized middlemen out of the lucrative advertising business, and consolidating future ad sales in the hands of the channel.

Death
Shortly after his appointment, on the evening of March 1, 1995, when returning from the live broadcast of his evening show Chas Pik, Listyev was shot dead on the stairs of his apartment building. Valuables and a large sum in cash that Listyev had on him were left untouched, leading the investigators to conclude that the murder was either a political or business-related assassination. However, despite numerous claims made by investigators that the case was close to resolution, neither the gunmen, nor those who ordered the killing, were found.

The killing caused an enormous public outcry—in an unprecedented move, ORT and several other Russian TV channels shut down for the whole day on March 2, displaying only a picture of Listyev and the words "Vladislav Listyev has been killed" (ВЛАДИСЛАВ ЛИСТЬЕВ УБИТ). Days later, the channel was reorganized and after a number of different incarnations, came back as the government-controlled Channel One that Russian viewers are now familiar with. Listyev's wake was visited by thousands of people, and President Boris Yeltsin went to the Studios of Channel One himself to deliver a highly emotional eulogy praising Listyev and mourning his death as a great loss for Russia.

There has been much speculation as to the reasons behind Listyev's murder, and two possible causes have been isolated as the most likely: financial and political. When Listyev put the middlemen advertising agencies out of business, he deprived many corrupt businessmen of a source for enormous profits. From the political standpoint, Listyev enjoyed an enormous popularity rating among Russian citizens and could potentially influence the political mood of the whole country.

Paul Klebnikov's article "Godfather of the Kremlin?" in Forbes accused Boris Berezovsky of ordering the murder. Berezovsky sued the magazine for libel in British court. Klebnikov expanded allegations in his book Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the looting of Russia. Forbes stated in court that it didn't have evidence of Berezovsky's complicity in Vlad Listyev's murder or any other murder.

According to Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, top KGB officers Alexander Korzhakov and Alexander Komelkov may have plotted Listyev's murder at the hands of Solntsevskaya Bratva. The authors implied that the motive was to steal the TV advertisement revenue and sponsor Oleg Soskovets for Russia's presidency. The authors believed that Korzhakov also used the murder to blame Berezovsky and to prepare his arrest.

title: Vladislav Listyev


text:
Military aid to the civil power

Aid to the Civil Power (ACP) or Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) is the use of the armed forces in support of the civil authorities of a state. Different countries have varying policies regarding the relationship between their military and civil authorities.

Australia
Under certain circumstances, the Australian Defence Force can be called upon to assist with law enforcement. State or territory civilian police have primary responsibility for law and order. Under section 119 of the Constitution of Australia, "The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence." This is further explained in section 51 of the Defence Act which states that: "Where the Governor of a State has proclaimed that domestic violence exists therein, the Governor-General, upon the application of the Executive Government of the State, may, by proclamation, declare that domestic violence exists in that State, and may call out the Permanent Forces and in the event of their numbers being insufficient may also call out such of the Emergency Forces and the Reserve Forces as may be necessary for the protection of that State, and the services of the Forces so called out may be utilised accordingly for the protection of that State against domestic violence."

Military forces have been deployed twice on the request of state or territory governments, and deployment authorised on one other occasion but not required:
 * September 1970: The governor-general signed an order-in-council authorising the deployment of the army to East New Britain Province of Papua New Guinea, then a territory of Australia, to assist local police with riot control if necessary. The army was not required and the order was revoked in April 1971.
 * February 1978: Following the Sydney Hilton bombing, 2,000 armed soldiers were deployed to Bowral and Mittagong to protect the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting and to protect the road and rail links between Sydney and the Southern Highlands.
 * March 2002: 2,400 military personnel were deployed to protect the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Coolum Beach, Queensland, including armed F/A-18 Hornets patrolling overhead, just months after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Australian military regulations also allow the federal government to use military forces "on its own initiative, for the protection of its servants or property, or the safeguarding of its interests". This has been done three times:
 * April 1983: RF-111C reconnaissance aircraft were used to investigate construction work by the government of Tasmania which was preparing to dam the Gordon River in contravention of federal law. The evidence from the reconnaissance flights was used to gain an injunction from the High Court of Australia against the work.
 * September 1989: Soldiers were deployed to Joint Defense Facility Nurrungar during a large political demonstration in which 300 protesters broke through the perimeter fence.
 * August 2001: The Special Air Service Regiment was used during the Tampa affair.

In addition, unarmed troops and defence force equipment have been used in industrial disputes, such as the 1949 Australian coal strike and the 1989 Australian pilots' dispute, under the "safeguarding of its interests" provisions.

Austria
The Austrian Armed Forces can be requested by all authorities on federal, state,  district or  municipal level in their respective sphere of competence in exceptional events. The federal government has to approve a deployment, if more than 100 soldiers are requested. ACP and MACP (called Assistenzeinsatz / AssE) can only be temporary, but are used extensively in Austria:

Deployments to support Law enforcement in Austria:
 * in September 1990, after the end of the Cold War period, the Iron Curtain was demolished, but Austria had no border guard, so the military was ordered to guard the border lines. It was planned to end this deployment after 10 weeks, but it lasted until December 2011.
 * in September 2013 military had to support the federal police during the Annaberg shooting, where three police officers and paramedic were murdered by a poacher.
 * in September 2015 due to the European migrant crisis the Austrian military was deployed to the borders again. This deployment is still ongoing (in 2023)
 * since August 2016 the military is guarding diplomatic missions and vulnerable institutions in Vienna
 * in May 2020 soldiers and reservists started to support law enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. This deployment lasted until 2022.

Deployments to support civil authorities:
 * in general, Austrian military is deployed in case of weather or environmental disasters
 * in May 2020 soldiers and reservists started to support civil authorities and health care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. This deployment lasted until 2022.

Canada
Canada has provisions, similar to the UK's military aid to the civil authorities, for military aid to the civil power inscribed in its National Defence Act, an historical inheritance from its days as a British dominion. However, the application is significantly different due to the federal nature of Canada, where the maintenance of "law and order" is the exclusive right and responsibility of the provinces.

The political authority empowered to requisition armed military "aid to the civil power" is therefore the solicitor general of the affected province in accordance with the National Defence Act, rather than the War Measures Act or its subsequent replacement, the Emergencies Act. This requisition is forwarded directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff (not to the federal government of Canada) who is obligated by law to execute the request. However, the Chief of the Defence Staff alone can determine the nature and level of forces to be committed.

The requesting province may subsequently be billed to pay the cost of the military aid, although the federal government most often waives it. One exception in recent years resulted from Toronto mayor Mel Lastman's request for military assistance following a snow storm in 1999, where at least 438 troops were deployed after the Ontario government acceded; this deployment was deemed by the Canadian government to be a trivialization of the military's emergency response role and the requesting authority was billed accordingly.

While the military is legally free to decide how to deal with an issue in regard to which it has been called out, in practice it works under the direction of the police forces or government of the province that has requested its aid. Such requests are made relatively often for specialized resources such as armoured vehicles (e.g. hostage situations) and technical capabilities not possessed by police forces.

They are also called out in the case of police strikes in those provinces that have unionised provincial police forces. Quebec has not hesitated to call on the Army for such help because the Army is the only other agency with French-speaking units able to replace striking police; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has few reserves able to provide a "surge" capability, and its French-speaking capability is limited.

Significant use of the Canadian Forces in aid of the Quebec civil power includes two relatively recent major civil crises:
 * the October crisis of 1970
 * the Oka crisis of 1990

As well, the Canadian Armed Forces have been called in to deal with labour crises, such as cavalry troops shipped to Edmonton to deal with an expected unemployed riot in 1931 and armoured cars to use strikers at Stratford in 1934. As well, in 1837 prior to Confederation, British troops were used to put down domestic rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and in the early years of existence as a federation, the Canadian Militia was mobilized for First Nation and Métis insurrections in its "territories", 1869 and 1885 (the first and second Riel Rebellions).

The federal government can and does use the military in aid of its own responsibilities, such as guarding federal buildings and facilities. Since 1993, the Canadian Armed Forces have also provided the country's federal counter-terrorism forces, replacing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that function. (See JTF2 for details of request and control of this capability).

Germany
The post-war Constitution of Germany strictly forbids the use of military force in police functions. In order to split the power of the government, the functions that MACP has in other countries are carried out by special or specialized police forces like the Bereitschaftspolizei units, each with a high number of officers, of each state police force, which are under the control of the state governments and not of the federal government.

For some actions, federal police forces can be used either by orders of the federal administration and federal judiciary or by request of the state government. The counter-terrorist unit GSG 9 is part of the Bundespolizei (until 2005 known as the Bundesgrenzschutz) and is well known in Germany for its antiterrorist missions. However, several state police corps maintains similar units, the SEK (Spezialeinsatzkommando). The Bundesgrenzschutz and the GSG 9 were historically combatants and they had military ranks, but have always been under the control of the Ministry of the Interior, similar to the internal troops in Eastern Europe during the Cold War period.

This strict separation between civil and military power was enacted to prevent the army from becoming a political power again in internal affairs and to secure its subordination to the civil power. Since the 1990s, a number of conservative politicians has called for an abolition of this rule, but there seems to be no majority for such a change.

But a new law was passed in September 2004, the Air Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz). From September 24, 2004 until February 2005 there was an exception from the use of military force regarding air security: In a case of imminent danger, the Bundeswehr and its air force branch, the German Air Force were authorised to use force against an aircraft.

As ultima ratio, the Minister of Defense was empowered to give the order to shoot down an aircraft if the aircraft was used as a weapon against humans and there was no other way to repel the attack. Air policing is a traditional task of the German Air Force. However, the Luftsicherheitsgesetz was declared unconstitutional on February 15, 2006, by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht). The court held that no civil aircraft may be shot down, even if the aircraft is used as a weapon by terrorist. The court held that the passengers' dignity and right to life would be violated if the aircraft was shot down.

In 2012, the Bundesverfassungsgericht judged that the military may intervene in "exceptional, imminent incidents of catastrophic scale" as a last resort. In the case of a hijacked plane by terrorists, the German Air Force may force the plane back or fire warning shots – a downing of the plane remains forbidden, unless every passenger of the plane is a terrorist. Such a case of "exceptional, imminent incidents of catastrophic scale" has to be determined, as ruled by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 2013, by the whole Cabinet of Germany (Bundesregierung), declaring a regulation void that previously allowed the Federal Minister of Defence (Bundesverteidigungsminister) to decide solely.

Indonesia
In Indonesia, the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) is regulated in the "Tri Darma Eka Karma" Doctrine of the TNI which states the role of the military to be involved in non-combat roles known as "OMSP" (Operasi Militer Selain Perang) translated: "Military Operation other than War". This role is stated that the Military's purpose for conducting the "OMSP" is to basically maintain the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity and maintaining the safety of the nation as well as helping to improve the welfare of the people. According to the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces General Hadi Tjahjanto, the tasks of the military in conducting the OMSP is to implement duties such as counter terrorism, border security, assisting regional governments, assisting the Indonesian National Police (Polri), disaster relief, assist security during state visits, as well as carrying out Peacekeeping operations under the United Nations. The Indonesian National Armed Forces is also in charge and responsible for the security of the President and Vice President, Former President and Former Vice-President along with their families and foreign VVIPs (Head of state or head of government) visiting Indonesia.

The Indonesian military to this day continues to be heavily involved in state civil affairs. According to the TNI commander, one of the role of the military is to basically assist the Indonesian National Police in terms of national security and order. The military are also likely to be called upon in response to civil unrest incidents which happen in the country such as the incidents which took place in Papua, Aceh, Poso, and Jakarta, other than that, the military is also involved in many tasks concerning to assist in security during national civil occasions such as during the national elections. The military are also likely to be deployed to assist the police during big-scale riots and protests which occur in urban settings near vital installations. Sometimes, the military are also posted in vital public locations together with the police such as in Airports and Railway stations during peak seasons.

Other than assisting the police, the military also assists other civil government institutions such as the National Search and Rescue Agency during disaster relief operations. Currently, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indonesian Military has been highly involved in tackling the pandemic.

Ireland
In Ireland, the Defence Forces provide assistance through Aid to the Civil Power (ATCP) arrangements to the Government of Ireland. The Army, Naval Service and Air Corps also provide Aid to Civil Community and Aid to Government departments, particularly in a supplementary role to the Garda Síochána, the national police force. Responsibilities include national security (Supplementing high risk prisoner escort, intelligence), cash escorts, explosive ordnance disposal, maritime safety, search and rescue, drug interdiction (Navy), fisheries protection (Navy), patrols of vital state installations and border patrols (including armed checkpoints), air ambulance service and non-combatant evacuation. Examples include; Garda Air Support Unit (GASU) aircraft being flown and maintained by Air Corps personnel, the Air Corps and Naval Service assisting in search and rescue (the Irish Coast Guard (IRCG) is a civilian agency which operates in the Republic of Ireland and some parts of Northern Ireland), the Army Ranger Wing (ARW) carrying out domestic counter-terrorism operations and the Directorate of Military Intelligence carrying out domestic counter-intelligence duties.

Italy
In 2008 the Italian Government decided to use soldiers from the Army, Navy and Air Force to patrol cities and protect high-value buildings (embassies, consulates, monuments). When military personnel patrol cities they are always accompanied by an agent from the Polizia di Stato (State Police), a military from the Carabinieri or a military from Guardia di Finanza.

Carabinieri are the 4th Armed force in Italy while Guardia di Finanza are a military body and are regular police forces with military status in Italy.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Military Aid to the Civil Power is one of the three classifications of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. MACP encompasses the provision of military assistance (armed if necessary) in its maintenance of law, order and public safety using specialist capabilities or equipment in situations beyond the capability of the Civil Power. This includes capabilities such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal and mountain rescue (where it is provided by the Royal Air Force Mountain Rescue Service)

Commander Home Command is the Standing Joint Commander responsible for the planning and execution of civil contingency operations within the UK landmass and territorial waters during any military aid to UK civil authorities.

United States
The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prohibits Federal military personnel (except the United States Coast Guard) and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

However, the National Guard may still be used for police-like duties if still under control of the state, as with the 1967 Detroit riot. Repeated caveats have been added to the Posse Comitatus Act over the years by subsequent legislation.

On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 in response to riots following the murder of George Floyd.

title: Military aid to the civil power


text:
Nick Leeson

Nicholas William Leeson (born 25 February 1967) is an English former derivatives trader whose fraudulent, unauthorised and speculative trades resulted in the 1995 collapse of Barings Bank, the United Kingdom's second oldest merchant bank. Leeson was convicted of financial crime in a Singapore court and served over four years in Changi Prison.

Between 2005 and 2011, Leeson had senior management roles at League of Ireland club Galway United. After it suffered financial difficulties, he resigned from his position as chief executive officer. He is also active on the keynote and after-dinner speaking circuit, where he advises companies about risk and corporate responsibility. Leeson is currently a corporate firm private investigator in charge of dealing with cases of financial misconduct. He resides in Galway as of 2023.

Early life
Nick Leeson was born in Watford, Hertfordshire, to working-class parents on a council estate. His father was a self-employed plasterer, his mother a nurse. He attended Parmiter's School in nearby Garston. After finishing sixth form in 1985 with six O Levels and two A level passes in English Literature and History with C and D grades respectively, failing his third subject, Mathematics, he was hired as a clerk with the Lombard Street branch of the Coutts private bank, where he settled paper cheques, crediting and debiting client accounts.

In 1987, Leeson moved to Morgan Stanley's Futures and Options back office, clearing and settling listed derivatives transactions. With few prospects for a front office role, he joined Barings Bank two years later, at £12,000 a year. With four other settlement specialists, he was briefly seconded to Hong Kong to troubleshoot Barings' back office in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta.

Leeson was then transferred to Baring's Jakarta office in 1990 where he handled some of Barings unpaid share certificates which amounted to £100 million. He returned to London in September 1991 to investigate a case of fraud in which a Barings employee had used a client's account to trade on a proprietary basis until margin calls from the clearinghouses unraveled the scheme.

Barings Bank
In April 1992, Barings decided to open a Futures and Options office in Singapore, executing and clearing transactions on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX). Barings had held a seat on SIMEX for some time, but did not activate it until Leeson, appointed general manager, was sent to head both front office and back office operations. Prior to leaving, Leeson was denied a broker's licence in the UK because of committing fraud on his application. He had failed to report a judgment against him entered by the National Westminster Bank. Neither Leeson nor Barings disclosed this denial when he applied for his licence in Singapore.

From 1992, Leeson made unauthorised speculative trades that at first made large profits for Barings: £10 million, which accounted for 10% of Barings' annual profit. He earned a bonus of £130,000 on his salary of £50,000 for that year. Leeson used one of Barings' error accounts (accounts used to correct mistakes made in trading) to hide his losses. He says that this account was first used to hide an error made by one of his subordinates. She had been assigned to buy 20 futures contracts for Fuji Bank, but had sold them instead, costing Barings £20,000.

Leeson used this error account to cover further bad trades by himself and others. For example, he used it to cover mistakes made by one of his traders who frequently came to work after long nights of partying. Leeson believes that he first crossed into out-and-out criminal conduct when he forgot to reconcile a discrepancy of 500 contracts, costing Barings US$1.7 million. He concluded that the only way to hide such a massive error and keep his job was to hide it in the error account. Leeson insists that he never used the account for his own gain, but in 1996 investigators had located approximately $35 million in various bank accounts tied to him.

Downfall and imprisonment
By the end of 1992, the error account's losses exceeded £2 million, increasing to £23 million in late 1993. This amount ballooned to £208 million by the end of 1994. Leeson had followed a "doubling" strategy: every time he lost money, he would bet double the amount that was lost to recoup the amount. This had been successful for him in the past, including once in 1993 where he was able to cover a £6 million negative balance in the error account and after which he vowed not to use the account again. Leeson had to maintain his reputation as a trading genius and soon found himself hiding his losses there again. As the losses grew higher, Leeson fabricated cover stories to explain why he needed more cash from London; his sterling reputation protected him from close scrutiny.

The beginning of the end occurred on 16 January 1995, when Leeson placed a short straddle in the Singapore and Tokyo stock exchanges, essentially betting that the Japanese stock market would not move significantly overnight. The Great Hanshin earthquake hit early in the morning on 17 January, sending Asian markets, and Leeson's trading positions, downward. Leeson attempted to recoup his losses by making a series of increasingly risky new trades (using a long-long future arbitrage), this time betting that the Nikkei Stock Average would make a rapid recovery. The recovery failed to materialise.

Leeson left a note reading, "I'm sorry" and fled Singapore on 23 February. Losses eventually reached £827 million (US$1.4 billion), twice Barings' available trading capital. After a failed bailout attempt, Barings, which had been the UK's oldest merchant bank, was declared insolvent on 26 February. After fleeing to Malaysia, Thailand and finally Germany, Leeson was arrested in Frankfurt and extradited to Singapore on 20 November 1995.

Leeson pleaded guilty to two counts of "deceiving the bank's auditors and of cheating the Singapore exchange", including forging documents. District judge Richard Magnus convicted Leeson and sentenced him to six and a half years in Changi Prison in Singapore. Leeson was released in July 1999 after serving at least two-thirds of his sentence (4 years and 4 months) for good behaviour, and having been diagnosed with colon cancer, which he survived despite grim forecasts. In 1996, Leeson published an autobiography, Rogue Trader, detailing his acts. A review in the financial columns of The New York Times stated, "This is a dreary book, written by a young man very taken with himself, but it ought to be read by banking managers and auditors everywhere." In 1999, the book was made into a film of the same name starring Ewan McGregor and Anna Friel. The events also form the subject matter of a 1996 television documentary made by Adam Curtis, titled Inside Story Special: £830,000,000 – Nick Leeson and the Fall of the House of Barings.

Post-release career
In 2003, as a mature student, Leeson completed a BSc in Psychology at Middlesex University. He is a guest on the after-dinner and keynote speaking circuits, stating in 2019 that "two events a month is enough to keep me in the manner to which I'm accustomed". Leeson still deals in stock markets, but only with his own money.

Galway United F.C.
Leeson was appointed commercial manager of Galway United F.C. in April 2005, rising to the position of general manager in November 2005. By July 2007 he had become the club's chief executive officer. In February 2011, after the club encountered financial problems, he resigned his position.

Investigator of financial misconduct
In March 2023, Leeson joined Red Mist Market Enforcement Unit, a corporate intelligence firm run by former Black Cube operative Seth Freedman, and turned into an investigator of financial misconduct cases.

Media appearances
In June 2005, Leeson released a new book, Back from the Brink: Coping with Stress. It picks up his story where Rogue Trader left off, including in-depth conversations with psychologist Ivan Tyrrell. In 2013 he appeared in Celebrity Apprentice Ireland on TV3.

In July 2015, Singapore's national daily newspaper The Straits Times published an e-book titled Guilty As Charged: 25 Crimes That Have Shaken Singapore Since 1965, which included the Nick Leeson case as one of the top 25 crimes that shocked the nation since its independence in 1965. The book was borne out of collaboration between the Singapore Police Force and the newspaper itself. The paperback edition of the book was published and first appeared on the bookshelves in late June 2017. The paperback edition first entered the ST bestseller list on 8 August 2017, a month after its publication.

On 5 April 2007, The Guardian reported that KPMG, the liquidators of Barings, had sold a trading jacket thought to have been worn by Leeson while trading on SIMEX in Singapore. The jacket was offered for sale on eBay but it failed to reach its reserve price despite a highest bid of £16,100. It was subsequently sold for £21,000. In October 2007 a similar jacket used by Leeson's team but not thought to have been worn by Leeson himself sold at auction for £4,000.

His name is mentioned in the credits of Rogue Trader together with Barings Bank losses of US$1,400,000,000.

Personal life
Leeson married Lisa Sims, later also known as Lisa Leeson, on March 21 1992. The couple met in Jakarta, where both were working on Barings Jakarta's office in 1990. Sims resigned from Barings Bank following her marriage to Leeson.

The couple divorced in 1997, a year after Leeson's arrest. Sims later worked as a flight attendant for Virgin Atlantic.

In 2003, four years after his release from Changi Prison, Leeson married Leona Tormay, an Irish beautician.

title: Nick Leeson


text:
Military aid to the civil community

Military aid to the civil community (MACC) is a phrase referring to the armed forces providing a service to the civilian community. It is used in many countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

Australia
The Australian Defence Force uses the term "defence assistance to the civil community" (DACC) which is divided into a range of categories.
 * DACC category 1: Assistance in local emergency situations when immediate action is necessary to save life. This can be arranged at the local level between civilian emergency services and local ADF commanders.
 * DACC category 2: Emergency assistance in more extensive or continuing disaster when state or territory resources are inadequate. This may include search and rescue, transport and evacuation, and communications. Requests for such assistance are normally made by state or territory governments to the federal government. Examples of this included large scale assistance after the 1955 Hunter Valley floods, Cyclone Tracy, 1989 Newcastle earthquake, Black Saturday bushfires and the 2011 Queensland floods.
 * DACC category 3: Assistance in recovery from an emergency or disaster which is not directly related to the saving of life or property. Requests for such assistance are normally made by civilian emergency services through Emergency Management Australia. This includes, for example, providing temporary bridges where permanent bridges have been destroyed by fire or flooding.
 * DACC category 4: Non-emergency assistance for public relations and ceremonial purposes. This includes requests for ADF equipment for use in film and television productions, flypasts for public events and performances by military bands. Requests for such assistance are normally made by the organiser through Department of Defence public affairs.
 * DACC category 5: Non-emergency assistance of a minor nature. This includes training for emergencies and disasters and other forms of training, except training with law enforcement.
 * DACC category 6: Support to civil authorities in the performance of non-emergency law enforcement where there is no possibility of the ADF using force.

Canada
Canadian legislation and practice is very similar to that of the UK, adjusted to reflect the constitutional authority and responsibility of provinces. Provinces are responsible for dealing with most situations requiring emergency military assistance. The military is frequently called out by provinces to deal with forest fires, floods, and ice storms and even lost children.

Unlike military aid to the civil power, the procedures are much less formal and decision-making is decentralized. Since the military does not act in a police role when called out under these provisions, the main issue is the level of government that pays for this aid; in principle, when a province requests aid, it must pay the bill.

The military also provides certain full-time functions, including search and rescue at sea and for missing aircraft. It also provides patrols in the air and at sea to enforce civil regulations in regard to pollution, fishing, etc. However, this assistance is in support of other federal government departments and is the subject of simple inter-department memoranda of understanding.

Germany
MACC is one of the fundamental military tasks of the Bundeswehr. It was also historically very important to get legitimation and the support of the population, since German rearmament was a difficult political decision, taken under heavy criticism. The Grundgesetz (the German constitution) contains several rules regarding MACC. The use of force is not permitted by the Bundeswehr under normal conditions. If force is required, the Bundesgrenzschutz federal police can be requested by the Bundesland.

Until the MACC during the North Sea flood of 1962 the constitution banned the use of the Bundeswehr in Germany totally. Due to public acceptance problems in the early Bundesrepublik, the Bundeswehr focused on MACC to improve its public image. During the North German Winter Catastrophe of 1978 and in several other incidents, the Bundeswehr provided substantial aid to the population. The Bundeswehr, with its SAR helicopters, is also part of the German air rescue system. The Luftwaffe also evacuates German citizens in international crises and catastrophes on behalf of the Auswärtiges Amt (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). The Luftwaffe also offers a flying hospital for medical withdrawal, which evacuated terror victims from Tunisia and tsunami victims from Thailand.

Ireland
In Ireland, the defence forces may provide assistance to civil communities through aid to the civil power (ATCP) arrangements with the government of Ireland. The Irish Army, Naval Service and Air Corps may be called upon during times of natural emergencies, such as storms, floodings, large fires, etc. This is in addition to its ATCP and aid to government departments roles, which include national security, counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, prisoner, cash, ammunition and explosives transport, maritime safety, search and rescue, drug interdiction, fisheries protection, patrols of vital state installations and border patrols (including armed checkpoints), air ambulance service and non-combatant evacuation.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, military aid to the civil community is one of the three classifications of military aid to the civil authorities. MACC covers the provision of unarmed military assistance to prevent or deal with the aftermath of a natural disaster or a major incident or, to assist civil sponsors either by carrying out special projects of significant social value to the community or by attaching individual volunteers to specific projects. As an example in 1968, the Royal Engineers formed a specialist squadron - 66 Plant Squadron based in Longmoor Hampshire from four specialist Plant troops (Southern (originally based in Longmoor), Midlands (originally based in Walsall, Northern originally based in Catterick and Scotland (originally based in Edinburgh). 66 Plant Squadron was at the time the biggest single Royal Engineers squadron with a large amount of Plant equipment (bulldozers, tippers, graders, rollers, excavators, cranes, and its transport vehicles). It consisted of 4 Troops, plus a HQ troop, a LAD (Light Aid Detachment from REME) and a Equipment & Stores Troop. Examples of MACC assistance carried out was the Cleaning up after the Torrey Canyon Incident when an Oil tanker ran onto rocks in the South West of England and 66 Plant squadron was tasked to clean up the beaches of oil residue, rebuilding Oekyel Bridge in Scotland after floods, building an airstrip between Kylakin and Broadford on the Isle of Skye, building and maintaining ranges in various locations on Salisbury Plain, enhancing the Tank proving grounds at Bovington (Royal Armourd Corps Training centre in Dorset), Exercise Waterleap in Canada, Dredging the Avon & Kennett Canal in Southern England to allow recreational boating, and building the range butts at Bisley in Hants. In addition various overseas MACC deployments were to Singapore, Malawi, Kenya and Canada.

United States
In the United States, military activities are generally severely limited, however, military assistance in rescue operations is common. This includes the national guard, who frequently are called to respond to domestic emergencies and natural disasters such as floods and severe weather, as well as elements of the regular and reserve armed forces when their expertise or equipment is needed, such as in response to Hurricane Katrina (US Naval hospital ships), the 2013 Colorado floods, and the 2014 Oso, Washington landslide.

title: Military aid to the civil community


text:
Talk:Military incompetence

Untitled
This isn't remotely NPOV - Khendon 11:14 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

As it stands, yes, it needs a lot of work. It would be possible to write a very interesting and informative entry on this topic, and do it in a clearly NPOV way, but very difficult. Tannin

It is NPOV, it states that in certain military campaigns there are discernable traits in leadership which have led to or exacerbated disaster? Seems to be likely, the article just summarizes the failings and indicates the campaigns where they can be seen. 62.253.64.7

 * It was considerably less NPOV before I edited it, and it still carries
 * a certain "smell" of saying that military leadership are always
 * incompetent. Also, as Tannin says, the list of examples is extremely
 * subjective. - Khendon 12:43 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm .. the list of battles could certainly use some work: World War I was as much about ignorance as incompetence, but OK. Pearl Harbor is a very poor example (as a careful reading of the history of the attack will quickly show - the Wikipedia entry on it, by the way, is very weak at present); Tobruk - Huh? Which Tobruk are we talking about? The famous one was an outstanding example of competence, not incompetence. Singapore: no doubt about that one. Dieppe, yeah. Arnhem - no, not really. Mostly just bad luck. Again, this is one where you have to read about it in depth.) Plus lots of missing ones. On the whole, I'm inclined to think that this topic is just too hard to do in an NPOV way. Possible, yes. But very difficult. Tannin

I was watching a documentary on the development of the AR-15/M16 on the History Channel. I think this could be used as an example of military incompetence because there were people in the U.S. military who initially rejected it. They thought the rounds were too small etc. --Dissipate 20:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is this article even necessary? This doesn't seem like a topic deserving of an article. -64.81.146.219

Iraq war as a definition example?
I don't feel that the Iraq war is a good example to show what this phrase means. It is very controversial, and to many is not seen as military incompetence. There are other, better, examples. If no one disagrees with this then the example will be removed. - Mamyles 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples
I'm loathe to include examples just now - I'd prefer to keep the article as general as possible - but it might be a good idea to toss around some possibilities on the talk page.

The two classic examples that immediately spring to mind are the Somme (one more push!) and the Light Brigade (lots of communication messups led to famous catastrophe) - and these are reasonably uncontentious ones SFAIK. I'd prefer to keep things like Iraq off (but if we do have it, please let's use the standard spelling), as we can argue for days over whether that's a political failure or a military one, etc etc. More clear-cut examples from further back are a lot better for everyone. Shimgray | talk | 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Military organizations poor learners?
The statement that military organizations are poor learners seem to be a rather far-out generalisation. Should be removed, or at least specified. Many military organizations have displayed amazing innovative qualities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.64.132 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Making this NPOV
This Talk page seems to be moving towards the outline: (a) military incompetence happens, and (b) there are frequently structural causes for this which (c) modern armies try to avoid, but (d) experts disagree about which historical examples actually constitute incompetence - and if so by whom - and (e) there are often personal, political and cultural reasons to claim particular events reflect incompetence. Currently the page just includes #a-#b; could we flesh it out with #c-#e? Then any examples we're not sure about can reside in #d until enough digging has been done to file them under #b or #e.

Contra 64.81.146.219 above, I do think this is worth having a page on: it describes a persistent - if usually unspoken - school of thought, backed up by a messy combination of legitimate examples and folksy anecdotes. However, the page for the Norman F. Dixon book is pretty stubby so might be worth merging into this one.

A couple of suggested modern examples would be the Six Day War and the current situation in Ukraine. Further back, Napoleon's winter invasion of Russia. 2A02:6B6E:D0FF:0:C823:2A38:8936:8A01 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Military incompetence