Defense Minister Luis Petri has filed a bill that would allow Argentina’s military to patrol the streets, and question or arrest people in circumstances of “terrorism.” The government argues the army’s quick response times and vast resources would strengthen the fight against terrorist groups. But in a rare coincidence, both human rights organizations and the military are opposed to the plan.

If approved, the project would allow the military to support the security forces in the event of actions designed to “terrorize the population.” Soldiers could be asked to perform duties that normally fall to the police, such as patrolling, stopping and searching people and vehicles, staffing security posts, guarding buildings, and arresting people. They would also be allowed to use force if necessary.

The bill would mean that in cases where a terrorism investigation is open, the army could be deployed without the need to declare a state of siege. 

The document was sent to Congress on August 5. Alongside Petri, it bears the signatures of Security Minister Patricia Bullrich, Chief of Staff Guillermo Francos, and President Javier Milei.

Currently, the military can only act in domestic security operations in two circumstances. The President, with approval from Congress, can declare a state of siege. This allows the armed forces to support the police to restore order. It was last done during the December 2001 economic crisis, when a crackdown on protests by the security forces caused 39 deaths nationwide.

A national Crisis Committee composed of the Interior Minister, the governor of the province affected, and heads of the branches of the police, can also ask the military for logistical support. In this case, they make their vehicles and arsenal available, but do not get directly involved in the security operation. The Milei government has implemented this in Rosario to combat drug trafficking gangs.

The Armed Forces have been explicitly barred from domestic security duties since the 1976-1983 civic-military dictatorship, except in the aforementioned circumstances. Their role is limited to acting upon external threats.

“One of the ways the military’s power was broken when democracy was restored was excluding them from domestic security,” said Manuel Tufró, director of the justice and security area of the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS, by its Spanish initials), a human rights nonprofit founded during the dictatorship. 

Human rights organizations have been quick to ask what, exactly, counts as terrorism. The bill itself does not offer a clear definition, although it notes that countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany use their armed forces to combat terrorist attacks. 

This vagueness could see the government drawing a false equivalence between groups such as Hamas and protesters arrested for vandalism, according to Fernando Morales, president of the Navy League, a civil association for members of the navy. “Terrorism is a very ambiguous term. It’s one thing to put the law together and another to send personnel out into the field.”

Tufró pointed out that, often, a terrorism investigation is not launched until after an attack has been carried out, at which point it is too late to prevent the loss of life. “Terrorism can’t be prevented with police stopping people on the streets. It’s prevented with intelligence work and other things,” he said.

Military caution

Moreover, the military themselves have also been wary of the plan. “The bill doesn’t give the military any guarantees. If they use their weapons, they could go to jail,” said Morales. “The military understands they don’t have the same duties police do.” He believed the bill would be difficult to implement, and that its primary goal was political.

When democracy was restored after the dictatorship, the high-ranking officials who masterminded the dictatorship’s atrocities, as well as the lower-ranking soldiers who carried them out, were tried in civilian courts. Many received life sentences for crimes against humanity. “It’s still a painful precedent for them,” Tufró said. 

Members of the military deployed to enforce Argentina’s domestic security would need to be re-trained to follow police protocols, whereby violence is a last resort, rather than military approaches to force to annihilate an enemy. 

The text states that the military’s actions within the scope of the bill would be considered part of their duties, and not subject to punishment, as long as they use force “in a rational, progressive and proportionate manner” after exhausting all other options. However, in countries such as Colombia and Mexico, military intervention has led to violence and rights violations skyrocketing, Tufró pointed out.

Ultimately, he explained, the prohibition on the defense sector involving itself with domestic security has been vital to Argentine democracy since the end of the dictatorship. Now, he worries that bills like this could blur the line.