THERE has been a lot of justifiable concern about the militarization of civilian police forces among civil libertarians since 9/11. The police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on 9 AUG 14 and the subsequent police brutality and violations of civil liberties there has brought this issue to the attention of the nation. Now, just maybe, citizens who should not be afraid of the police will demand their local, state and federal governments will review local police departments using military equipment against American citizens and put the necessary limits and controls in place to defend us from the police and to force them to restore each department to their original purpose for being, to "protect and serve". From the +PBS NewsHour and +Daily Kos .....
Hari Sreenivasan in our New York studios picks up that part of the story.HARI SREENIVASAN: Most
notably, many have been talking about how military equipment is making
its way from the Department of Defense to police departments around the
country.
Matt Apuzzo been covering this for The New York Times and joins me now from its Washington, D.C., bureau.
So, Matt, what kind of equipment are we talking about? What are local authorities in Ferguson using that came from the DOD or the Pentagon?
MATT APUZZO, The New York Times: Well, I mean, for starters, the Pentagon makes it very hard to track equipment that goes from the military to local agencies.
I mean, the best data we can get comes at the county level. But in a response like this, where — you know, where it’s basically all hands on deck for a county response, you know, a number of M-16s — M-16s are very common. Under President Obama, there have been tens of thousands of M-16s transferred to police departments nationwide, after, you know, being used in the military.
We have also seen there also have been some trucks, there have been some aircraft. This is part of a program that began as part of the drug war, the idea being, in the ’90s, we need to give this surplus military equipment to police departments as a way to fight drug gangs.
And like a lot of programs, after 9/11, it was sort of re-engineered for counterterrorism purposes and expanded. And, you know, you have really seen — after the drawdown of two wars, you have really seen a huge amount of military equipment being transferred from the Pentagon to local police departments, state and local police departments.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So, how widespread is this and what happens to the equipment if police departments don’t want it?
MATT APUZZO: Well, it’s very widespread.
It’s one of the more popular programs as far as police goes, because this stuff is free. So, what happens is, for instance, we bought a bunch of — we, the United States taxpayer, bought a bunch of MRAPs, mine-resistant trucks, for fighting in Iraq.
And now we’re not in — now we’re not fighting in Iraq anymore, and so we have got all these extra trucks. And so they’re basically offering them to police departments for free. And they say, if you want these trucks, you can have them, and if you don’t want them, we will just scrap them.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So the police departments that you have talked to in your reporting, do they say any particular reason that they need an armored vehicle that can withstand a mine patrolling their streets?
MATT APUZZO: Well, most police departments say, well, look, I don’t think we necessarily need it to sustain a mine explosions, but we wanted a bulletproof truck, and this was the one that was available for free, or we could go out and buy it.
Now, remember, for the past 10 years, there have been — federal grants have been paying for these — for police departments to buy this stuff outright. So the idea of — the idea that this is all just coming from the Pentagon, that’s just one part of it.
So what you’re seeing is, you’re seeing police departments saying, well, geez, if it’s free, what’s the downside?
HARI SREENIVASAN: And one of their concerns is that their citizenry or communities in certain areas are heavily armed. Is there any legitimacy to that idea, that claim, saying, we’re almost outgunned when we go out there and we don’t feel protected?
MATT APUZZO: Well, I mean, certainly, there’s an argument that police should be protected.
Nobody — any — nobody I talk to say — nobody anybody would talk to would say that police shouldn’t have protection. But the idea that — the idea that the streets of the United States are so dangerous as to — the police are outgunned, it just isn’t borne out by the data.
We’re looking at violent crime in the United States now is at a generational low, and police shootings have been steadily declining — shootings against police. And I should note that, while the federal government and private groups keep data when people shoot police, no such data is collected when the police shoots people.
And what’s interesting about this is, what we’re seeing in Ferguson, is we can have the discussion about the — what military equipment should go to police departments, but you can be certain that what’s happening in Ferguson is only going to encourage more police departments to buy this stuff.
HARI SREENIVASAN: OK.
And what about the — we had a couple of members of Congress today, even the attorney general say that they’re very concerned about this militarization. Anything likely to happen? It seems like a congressional program with some support.
MATT APUZZO: Yes, I mean, there hasn’t really been any opposition to this program.
You know, the criticism of the so-called militarization of police has largely come from libertarian quarters for several years. They have kind of been the lone voice on this, folks like the Cato institute. “Reason” magazine has been writing a lot about this.
And you’re sort of seeing — you’re sort of seeing right now — in Ferguson, you’re starting to see what’s happening there, kind of galvanize some of the more traditional liberal voices against this in ways that they have kind of just been on the sidelines on this issue.
But you’re right. The idea that — the idea that this is a new concept to members of Congress is certainly — it’s just not true. It’s been no secret that these transfers have been going. It’s a popular — the military transfer program is very popular, as are the grant programs.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Matt Apuzzo of The New York Times joining us from Washington, D.C., thanks so much.
MATT APUZZO: Thank you.
The militarization of America's police forces that has been on full
display in Ferguson, Missouri, this week didn't begin yesterday or with
the Bush administration. It dates back decades. But it has, as Radley
Balko has written in two books, gotten worse. Here's Susan Gardner, in a book review in 2006 of Balko's Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America:
Why military equipment is in the hands of local police
Violent
clashes between local police and protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, has
highlighted the distribution of military equipment to police departments
around the country from the U.S. Defense Department. Hari Sreenivasan
talks to Matt Apuzzo of The New York Times about the concerns over the
militarization of domestic law enforcement.
TRANSCRIPT
GWEN IFILL: One of the many issues in Ferguson attracting national attention is the extent to which local police are becoming ever more heavily armed, or, as many put it, militarized.Matt Apuzzo been covering this for The New York Times and joins me now from its Washington, D.C., bureau.
So, Matt, what kind of equipment are we talking about? What are local authorities in Ferguson using that came from the DOD or the Pentagon?
MATT APUZZO, The New York Times: Well, I mean, for starters, the Pentagon makes it very hard to track equipment that goes from the military to local agencies.
I mean, the best data we can get comes at the county level. But in a response like this, where — you know, where it’s basically all hands on deck for a county response, you know, a number of M-16s — M-16s are very common. Under President Obama, there have been tens of thousands of M-16s transferred to police departments nationwide, after, you know, being used in the military.
We have also seen there also have been some trucks, there have been some aircraft. This is part of a program that began as part of the drug war, the idea being, in the ’90s, we need to give this surplus military equipment to police departments as a way to fight drug gangs.
And like a lot of programs, after 9/11, it was sort of re-engineered for counterterrorism purposes and expanded. And, you know, you have really seen — after the drawdown of two wars, you have really seen a huge amount of military equipment being transferred from the Pentagon to local police departments, state and local police departments.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So, how widespread is this and what happens to the equipment if police departments don’t want it?
MATT APUZZO: Well, it’s very widespread.
It’s one of the more popular programs as far as police goes, because this stuff is free. So, what happens is, for instance, we bought a bunch of — we, the United States taxpayer, bought a bunch of MRAPs, mine-resistant trucks, for fighting in Iraq.
And now we’re not in — now we’re not fighting in Iraq anymore, and so we have got all these extra trucks. And so they’re basically offering them to police departments for free. And they say, if you want these trucks, you can have them, and if you don’t want them, we will just scrap them.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So the police departments that you have talked to in your reporting, do they say any particular reason that they need an armored vehicle that can withstand a mine patrolling their streets?
MATT APUZZO: Well, most police departments say, well, look, I don’t think we necessarily need it to sustain a mine explosions, but we wanted a bulletproof truck, and this was the one that was available for free, or we could go out and buy it.
Now, remember, for the past 10 years, there have been — federal grants have been paying for these — for police departments to buy this stuff outright. So the idea of — the idea that this is all just coming from the Pentagon, that’s just one part of it.
So what you’re seeing is, you’re seeing police departments saying, well, geez, if it’s free, what’s the downside?
HARI SREENIVASAN: And one of their concerns is that their citizenry or communities in certain areas are heavily armed. Is there any legitimacy to that idea, that claim, saying, we’re almost outgunned when we go out there and we don’t feel protected?
MATT APUZZO: Well, I mean, certainly, there’s an argument that police should be protected.
Nobody — any — nobody I talk to say — nobody anybody would talk to would say that police shouldn’t have protection. But the idea that — the idea that the streets of the United States are so dangerous as to — the police are outgunned, it just isn’t borne out by the data.
We’re looking at violent crime in the United States now is at a generational low, and police shootings have been steadily declining — shootings against police. And I should note that, while the federal government and private groups keep data when people shoot police, no such data is collected when the police shoots people.
And what’s interesting about this is, what we’re seeing in Ferguson, is we can have the discussion about the — what military equipment should go to police departments, but you can be certain that what’s happening in Ferguson is only going to encourage more police departments to buy this stuff.
HARI SREENIVASAN: OK.
And what about the — we had a couple of members of Congress today, even the attorney general say that they’re very concerned about this militarization. Anything likely to happen? It seems like a congressional program with some support.
MATT APUZZO: Yes, I mean, there hasn’t really been any opposition to this program.
You know, the criticism of the so-called militarization of police has largely come from libertarian quarters for several years. They have kind of been the lone voice on this, folks like the Cato institute. “Reason” magazine has been writing a lot about this.
And you’re sort of seeing — you’re sort of seeing right now — in Ferguson, you’re starting to see what’s happening there, kind of galvanize some of the more traditional liberal voices against this in ways that they have kind of just been on the sidelines on this issue.
But you’re right. The idea that — the idea that this is a new concept to members of Congress is certainly — it’s just not true. It’s been no secret that these transfers have been going. It’s a popular — the military transfer program is very popular, as are the grant programs.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Matt Apuzzo of The New York Times joining us from Washington, D.C., thanks so much.
MATT APUZZO: Thank you.
Totals are the minimum number of pieces acquired since 2006 in few categories.
This study traces the rise of infatuation with SWAT units, which today is largely used to serve drug warrants dozens of times a day across the USA, to L.A. police chief Daryl Gates' use of them and the Reagan administration's official declaration that the drug war was a part of "national security," thus opening the doors to Defense Department giveaways and discounts of weaponry to towns such as Jasper, Florida (population 2,000), which has a police force of seven and hasn't had a murder in 14 years.And here's Glenn Greenwald at First Look, writing at The Intercept Thursday:
The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.” [...] The best and most comprehensive account of the dangers of police militarization is the 2013 book by the libertarian Washington Post journalist Radley Balko, entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.” Balko, who has devoted his career to documenting and battling the worst abuses of the U.S. criminal justice system, traces the history and underlying mentality that has given rise to all of this: the “law-and-order” obsessions that grew out of the social instability of the 1960s, the War on Drugs that has made law enforcement agencies view Americans as an enemy population, the Reagan-era “War on Poverty” (which was more aptly described as a war on America’s poor), the aggressive Clinton-era expansions of domestic policing, all topped off by the massively funded, rights-destroying, post-9/11 security state of the Bush and Obama years. All of this, he documents, has infused America’s police forces with “a creeping battlefield mentality.”And here's Matt Apuzzo writing two months ago in the New York Times:
During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft. The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”When cops treat people the way an occupying army would, the consequences for citizens, for constitutional protections, for the police themselves are exactly the opposite of what is needed in a civilized society. "Serve and protect" is transformed into a sick joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment