Posted on 08/26/2014 2:32:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
America's attention recently turned away from the violence in Iraq and Gaza toward the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting of Michael Brown. While all the facts surrounding the shooing have yet to come to light, the shock of seeing police using tear gas (a substance banned in warfare), and other military-style weapons against American citizens including journalists exercising their First Amendment rights, has started a much-needed debate on police militarization.
The increasing use of military equipment by local police is a symptom of growing authoritarianism, not the cause. The cause is policies that encourage police to see Americans as enemies to subjugate, rather than as citizens to "protect and serve." This attitude is on display not only in Ferguson, but in the police lockdown following the Boston Marathon bombing and in the Americans killed and injured in "no-knock" raids conducted by militarized SWAT teams.
One particularly tragic victim of police militarization and the war on drugs is "baby Bounkham." This infant was severely burned and put in a coma by a flash-burn grenade thrown into his crib by a SWAT team member who burst into the infant's room looking for methamphetamine.
As shocking as the case of baby Bounkham is, no one should be surprised that empowering police to stop consensual (though perhaps harmful and immoral) activities has led to a growth of authoritarian attitudes and behaviors among government officials and politicians. Those wondering why the local police increasingly look and act like an occupying military force should consider that the drug war was the justification for the Defense Department's "1033 program," which last year gave local police departments almost $450 million worth of "surplus" military equipment. This included armored vehicles and grenades like those that were used to maim baby Bounkham.
Today, the war on drugs has been eclipsed by the war on terror as an all-purpose excuse for expanding the police state. We are all familiar with how the federal government increased police power after September 11 via the PATRIOT Act, TSA, and other Homeland Security programs. Not as widely known is how the war on terror has been used to justify the increased militarization of local police departments to the detriment of our liberty. Since 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has provided over $35 billion in grants to local governments for the purchase of tactical gear, military-style armor, and mine-resistant vehicles.
The threat of terrorism is used to justify these grants. However, the small towns that receive tanks and other military weapons do not just put them into storage until a real terrorist threat emerges. Instead, the military equipment is used for routine law enforcement.
Politicians love this program because it allows them to brag to their local media about how they are keeping their constituents safe. Of course, the military-industrial complex's new kid brother, the law enforcement-industrial complex, wields tremendous influence on Capitol Hill. Even many so-called progressives support police militarization to curry favor with police unions.
Reversing the dangerous trend of the militarization of local police can start with ending all federal involvement in local law enforcement. Fortunately, all that requires is for Congress to begin following the Constitution, which forbids the federal government from controlling or funding local law enforcement. There is also no justification for federal drug laws or for using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to treat all people as potential criminals. However, Congress will not restore constitutional government on its own; the American people must demand that Congress stop facilitating the growth of an authoritarian police state that threatens their liberty.
You didn’t expect anything different, didn’t you?
Like him or hate him, he made some good points.
Recruitment is inevitable, ISIS, JIHADISTS AND THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY
The last thing America needs is ANOTHER wild card calling the shots.
I am sick to death of the whole Hollywood inspired lie that the ‘rebel’ or the ‘maverick’ types have any redeeming value!
Anti-Establishment people are NOT the answer for us. It’s time for America to revisit the benefits and the advantages of order and tradition.
Tear gas banned in war? Hell, they use it in basic training. Perhaps Mr. Paul would prefer the method of crowd dispersal popularized by the British in Ireland and the Punjab early in the 20th century. How ‘bout a spray of heavy machine gun fire?
I suppose teargas is banned in war, because it is technical a chemical weapon
So far no one is connecting the dots. First allow uncontrolled illegal immigration for a few decades. Get the stats - most of the violent crime is committed by illegal aliens of the drug cartel/gang member variety. Use Fast and Furious to put military grade weapons in the hands of those drug cartels and give them carte blanche to enter and terrorize the U.S. Then, because the local police are out-gunned by the cartel aliens, promote the need for them to have superior weapons. Next, desensitize the local police so they treat legitimate American citizens the same as the illegal alien criminals. And there you have it.
Ferguson and “baby Bounkham” were not merely accidents waiting to happen, but a small part of the very natural and predictable consequences of this assault on our nation by our own government in its quest for power over the American citizenry.
Racism is the distraction, don’t fall for it.
Probably because the MB issue is irrelevant to Paul’s argument. Paul’s point is about the police handling of the protests - that point remains the same, regardless of whether the initial shooting was justified.
I’m sure you’re right, but I still think it was an idiotic remark for him to make. The alternatives in dispersing a mob are gentle persuasion and gunfire. The former is notoriously ineffective.
” - - - - ending all federal involvement in local law enforcement. - - - “
Does that include a gag order for Obama and Holder to keep them from commenting on the brave Police who are protecting us from looting, mayhem, and mob rule in the Court of Public Opinion?
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.
Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says rightwing extremism may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments... to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,
I seems the law abiding American citizen is surrounded by enemies on every side.
Revolution Now!
He is shocked that police use tear gas in a riot?
Kook.
Bull puckey!
Journalists have no more right to be in a place they're told by the police to leave as a matter of public safety than any other citizen. (Whether the cops make such a call properly is of course another subject entirely.)
There's nothing in the Constitution about journalists having special privileges above anybody else, with the exception of not being prosecuted or prohibited from publishing things they wrote. With the spread of the internet, anybody can be a member of the press.
Members of the press do not have a legal right to violate laws to get a story, or to conspire with others to commit crimes to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.