United States
Marine Corps
United States Marine Corps
1775: Founding of the Marine Corps
A legacy is born
During the American Revolution, many important
political discussions took place in the inns and
taverns of Philadelphia, including the founding of the
Marine Corps.

A committee of the Continental Congress met at
Tun Tavern to draft a resolution calling for two
battalions of Marines able to fight for independence
at sea and on shore.  

The resolution was approved on November 10,
1775, officially forming the Continental Marines.

As the first order of business, Samuel Nicholas
became Commandant of the newly formed Marines.
Tun Tavern’s owner and popular patriot, Robert
Mullan, became his first captain and recruiter. They
began gathering support and were ready for action
by early 1776.  

Each year, the Marine Corps marks November 10th
with a celebration of the brave spirit which
compelled these men and thousands since to
defend our country as United States Marines.
The Official Web site of the U. S. Marine Corps

Marine Forces Reserve must be READY, RELEVANT,

MARFORRES is comprised of two groups of Marines
and Sailors – those who are not currently on active
duty, and those who are. The former represent the
core of our warfighting strength; the latter are the
critical enablers who ensure we are always combat
ready. Both groups are essential. Neither group
could succeed without the other. We are all
members of “the first team.” We must all meet “first
team” standards.

The mission of Marine Forces Reserve
(MARFORRES) is to augment and reinforce active
Marine forces in time of war, national emergency or
contingency operations, provide personnel and
operational tempo relief for the active forces in
peacetime, and provide service to the community.

Equipped and trained to the same rigorous
standards as our active Marine forces, to include
joint operations, Marine Forces Reserve will be
trained and educated to the highest levels, and
provide rapid response when called upon. As
versatile Continental Marines, Marine Forces Reserve
will be ever-ready to alleviate the intense personnel
and operational tempo of active forces in peacetime.
The GITMO Paradigm
by Barry M. Baker
You might be wondering what the debate over
Gitmo, the terrorist detention center at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, has to do with your
career as a police officer?  Gitmo is one of those
rare instances where government created and
implemented an efficient way of doing things. When
it comes to issues of public safety, government only
responds efficiently when those issues are perceived
as urgent and important.  The terrorist attacks on
9/11 certainly met that criteria, and a lot of ideas
were rapidly implemented.  The success or failure of
all the other ideas is overshadowed by the brilliance
and success of the Gitmo Paradigm.

Constitutional issues are most often cited as the
reasons for the elimination of Gitmo.  There are a
lot of people who think they’re really smart for
realizing that the primary reason for locating the
terrorist detention center at the naval base in Cuba
was to deny those who want to destroy America all
the constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans.  
Aside from the fact that no precedent exists to
extend constitutional rights to those detained at
Gitmo, the main reason for the location was to
avoid confusion created by those who are creating
the confusion anyway.
The main reason for the confusion exists because
of ideologies.  One believes that no real war against
terrorism exists.  The more light thinking among us
usually look back to December 8, 1941 when
President Franklin D. Roosevelt uttered these
words, “I ask that the Congress declare that since
the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on
Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has
existed between the United States and the
Japanese Empire.”  The argument goes that since
the United States Congress has not “declared war”
against anyone, no “war” exists.  In regard to the
terrorist attack of 9/11, the Congress passed
legislation, S.J.Res. 23, on September 14, 2001,
authorizing the President to “use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons....”  Now, it
could just be me, but I don’t see much difference
between the first and the latter.  In fact, the
authorization given to the President for response to
the attacks of 9/11 could be viewed as more
expansive than the declaration of war
[authorization] of 1941.

This ideology also maintains that any terrorist, no
matter where that terrorist is apprehended, be
treated the same as any criminal suspect
apprehended inside the United States.  Let’s do
this.  Instead of sending soldiers and marines to
battle terrorists, we could collect police SWAT
teams from across the country from New York to
Los Angeles and send them after the terrorists.  
After each firefight, those terrorists captured could
be given their Miranda Warnings right there on the
battlefield.  Of course, it could be really difficult to
find lawyers and judges willing to follow the SWAT
teams to file and hear the various legal motions.  
That’s right, the lawyers and judges could stay at
home and wait for the terrorists to be shipped back
to the United States and placed in various federal
detention centers across the country.  The lawyers
and judges could handle the motions in the comfort
of well guarded courthouses with running water.  
But, there’s another problem.  When you become a
police officer, you’ll soon learn how touchy judges
are about your prompt appearance in court when
summoned.  You’ve just returned to your job
policing San Francisco when you receive a summons
to testify on a motion for an arrest you made in
Afghanistan.  The only problem is that the terrorist
you arrested is having his motion heard in a
courtroom in Philadelphia.

Okay, I know it’s silly.  But, how silly is it to apply
constitutional rights to terror suspects captured
outside of the United States?  A lot of people forget
that the United States Military has its own
constitutional justice mechanism.  Could money,
with its accompanied power and influence, have
anything to do with treating foreign terrorists as
Americans?  After all, an army captain, who’s a
lawyer in JAG (Judge Advocate General), defending
a terror suspect, is paid the same as a captain
commanding a company of infantry.

Put aside all the constitutional arguments against
GITMO and realize just one thing.  Whether you’re
involved in fighting international terrorists, domestic
terrorists, or any other stripe of criminal, success is
often just as damaging to your efforts as failure.  
While failure provides an easy reason to change
things, changing a successful policy just requires a
lot of creative obfuscation.   

Get Your Degree!

Find schools and get information on the program that’s right for you.

Powered by Campus Explorer

Copyright © 2019  Barry M. Baker  
Marines.mil :: Official Home of the United States
Marine Corps - The United States Marine Corps
(USMC) is a branch of the U.S. military responsible
for providing power projection from the sea,
utilizing the mobility of the U.S. Navy to rapidly
deliver combined-arms task forces to global crises.
Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates
under the United States Department of the Navy.