The task of providing security, welfare, and peace and order is with the shoulders of the law enforcement and military. Though their general objective is relatively similar, their executive functions and jurisdiction separate them into two unique classifications. The law enforcement is mainly concern with the implementation of the laws as their executive functions in the society. In this function, this entity bears a closer jurisdiction with the people as they operate in a regular basis.
On the other hand, military is mainly the executive body of the government acting through the value of strict obedience. Their function is mainly to protect the constitution of their society on the level of national threat and issue. Often, the military also act as part of the law enforcement entity performing tasks to implement the law and provide welfare assistance to the people. Through the establishment of the constitutional function of the two entities, a separation line was between the function and jurisdiction of the law enforcement and the military.
However, there are times when the jurisdiction of the two entities overlaps one another thus, creating an issue of special cases wherein a cooperative strategy must be implemented. Consider the case where a local officer intercepted a money launderer for known international terrorist who signed to cooperate for the apprehension of the terrorist leaders. However, the launderer submits that most of the officials in the law enforcement body are corrupt and might not cooperate.
Thus, the issue of who will better handle the case must now be addressed. Considering the legal nature and the executive function of the law enforcement group, the said case of handling the information given by the launderer, who is now an asset, must be given to the special law enforcement group working under the Department of Homeland Security as their function and interest suffice for the said case.
The information given by the asset is relates to known international terrorists who are capable of imposing national threat on the U. S. soil thus, making this a concern of the Homeland Security special enforcement group. In their motive of preventing threat to their nation, they must act upon the information given by the asset giving the identity and activity of the terrorist group.
However, because of the information related by the asset noting the corruption and unwillingness for participation with the officials in the law enforcement group, this information and project must only be related to trusted officials from both the Department of Homeland Security and the law enforcement sector. Indeed, for this case, the specialized law enforcement’s jurisdiction must be prioritized to handle the case as they have now gained the trust and cooperation of their asset towards the apprehension and prevention of the known terrorist group’s activities.