I was alerted today, by friends in Hamtramck, that their police force had just taken possession of an armored military assault vehicle, and I was reminded of a good conversation we had here about a year ago on the growing militarization of American police forces. If you have time, I’d encourage you to go back and read it. Assuming you won’t do that, though, here are two of my favorite quotes from that post.
The first comes from Battlestar Galactica’s
“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
And the second, regarding possible solutions, comes from the end of the 2006 report by the CATO Institute:
…End the Pentagon Giveaways. The primary reason so many police departments across the country can afford SWAT teams is the Pentagon’s policy of making surplus military equipment available to those departments for free, or at steep discounts. The Pentagon used its defense budget to buy that equipment, a budget given to it by Congress on behalf of American taxpayers for the purpose of defending Americans from threats from abroad. It’s perverse to then use that equipment against American citizens as part of the government’s war on domestic drug offenders…
If you haven’t done so already this year, please consider making a donation to the ACLU Foundation. They’re one of the only organizations in our country willing to take on the fight against a government putting tanks on the streets and drones in the sky against its citizens.
16 Comments
Chances are, if one if these Freedom Enforcement Vehicles comes after you, you’ve done something wrong. You may not have committed a crime right then, but chances are, if you were in a bad neighborhood, you were guilty of something.
According to Facebook, 72 people liked this post. I wonder why. Are there criminal masterminds in Hamtramck that can’t be apprehended with conventional weapons?
I won’t feel safer until there are men with machine guns on every corner.
A large number of conservative organizations have been opposed to the militarization of local police since the early sixty’s. Glad the liberals have finally noticed. Support Rand Paul and we’ll return to the constitutional foundations of our government. He would enact changes that both conservatives and liberals would agree on. We need a new paradigm.
“Glad the liberals have finally noticed.”
Ignorant and condescending–such a powerful combination.
Paul told Fox the following:
I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…
If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement. I’m just not for surveillance when there’s not probable cause that there’s a crime being committed.
Nothing says “constitutional foundations of our government” like using multimillion-dollar drones to kill a guy who might have stolen 50 bucks or maybe an innocent guy running from the guy trying to steal 50 bucks.
The spectacular Dredd Blog System, composed of:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com – dredd blog
http://powertoxins.blogspot.com – toxins of power
http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com – ecocosmology
see especially:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/p/series-posts.html
not to be missed
There is nothing in the Constitution about drones or assault vehicles and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Rand Paul or the Republicans will do anything at all to contain local police departments.
“There is nothing in the Constitution about drones or assault vehicles”
Yes, there is. The Constitution explicitly forbids the establishment of “standing armies”; hence the whole of the military-industrial complex, since WWII, is unconstitutional. Armies, according to the Constitution, are to be composed for a period limited to two years; i.e. to accomplish a specific purpose, THEN DISBANDED. No standing army/military. Drones and assault vehicles are extensions of a “standing army”, i.e. a standing military establishment, at least in terms of the spirit in which the Constitution was written.
But then, who cares about the Constitution? As Dubya wisely remarked, it’s just a goddam piece of paper.
I stand with progressive elements everywhere, calling for arms of all kinds to be kept exclusively in the hands of the proper authorities — the only ones who can be relied upon to use them wisely. These dangerous implements should be OUT of the hands of ordinary schlubs like you and me. Anyone who questions this obvious truth should be detained for questioning regarding possible terrorist activity or sympathy.
Mark’s post is the same as the John Birchers:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17056-obama-flooding-u-s-streets-with-weapons-of-war-for-local-police
As an American and a taxpayer, I’m just grateful that the authorities are doing what needs to be done in the most economical way possible:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/homeland-security-bullets_n_2688402.html
Homeland Security Explains Plan To Purchase More Than 1.6 Billion
Bullets: Buying In Bulk Is Cheaper 02/14/13
…. now, if only they would enact a comprehensive BAN on ammo sales to unauthorized individuals, we could all sleep sounder and safer.
Who, like me, is shocked to learn that EOS reads John Bircher sites?
Assuming the Bircher article is correct, this vehicle we’re discussing in Hamtramck is one of 150 “mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles” (MRAP) used by U.S. forces in Iraq to be given to local police forces.
Don’t deflect. Mark could be their ghost writer. Now that’s a shocker.
“War Gear Flows to Police Departments” from the NYT:
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html