THE militarization of our local and state police departments and the corresponding erosion of our civil rights and civil liberties started right after 9/11. Our nation has become a warstate, we are at war with everything, and because of this mentality pounded into us by the unrelenting propaganda campaigns by our politicians, corporate America, the military-industrial complex and too many of our religious leaders we have lost the dream of ever living in peace at home or abroad. We are a war weary nation yet continue to turn away from the basic teachings of our faith (after all, we do proclaim ourselves as a Christian nation) that offers the means to address our problems through peace and justice. Here are three articles concerning the militarization of our police departments and what it has done to our communities, and yes, this is very appropriate to consider on 9/11. From +Mother Jones and +NPR .....
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) at the Senate hearing.
In a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing Tuesday,
Democratic and Republican lawmakers slammed officials from the
Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice
for their handling of federal programs that help provide military grade
vehicles, equipment, and weapons to local police departments across the
country. The hearing was called in response to the events
that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, after an unarmed black teenager,
Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a white police officer, and
peaceful protests were met by a heavily militarized police force.
"Aggressive police actions [were] being used under the umbrella of
'crowd control,'" noted Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
The panel grilled Alan Estevez, a Department of Defense agent dealing with logistics and acquisition of military equipment; Brian Kamoie, a federal grant regulator at the Department of Homeland Security; and Karol Mason, an attorney from the Department of Justice.
Senators questioned why certain military equipment was on the Pentagon's list of acceptable items for local police departments. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) declared that police militarization gives him "real heartburn" and wondered "how did we get to the point where we think states needs MRAPS"—that is, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, which have been acquired by a large number of small police departments across the country. In Texas, McCaskill noted, police departments have more than 70 MRAPS, while the state National Guard has just six.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned what police departments could possibly do with the 1,200 bayonets that have been issued in recent years. The Pentagon's Alan Estevez replied that he was unsure. Throughout the hearing, members of the panel underscored the point that police officers are often not adequately trained in how (and when) to use the military-grade equipment their departments acquire. The Pentagon doesn't require police departments to undergo any training before supplying them MRAPS and other military equipment.
Estevez testified that the Pentagon would reevaluate its list of acceptable equipment for police departments. But Brian Kamoie, the Homeland Security official, and the Justice Department's Karol Mason, both acknowledged that their agencies don't do much to regulate how police departments use the grant money they dole out to local law enforcement.
McCaskill condemned the Department of Defense and the other agencies for their lack of oversight over the use of military equipment by local police. "None of them know how it's being utilized," McCaskill said. She pointed out that a police department in Lake Angelus, Michigan, which employs only one police officer, has received 13 military grade assault weapons since 2011. "I think we need to get to the bottom of that," McCaskill said.
Watch the hearing here:
This weekend, my colleague Prashanth Kamalakanthan and I attended
Urban Shield, a first-responder convention sponsored by more than 100
corporations and the Department of Homeland Security. The five-day
confab included a trade show where vendors display everything from
armored trucks to sniper rifles to 3-D printable drones. (We documented a
few of the more remarkable offerings here.)
It also involved the largest SWAT training exercise in the world. Some
35 SWAT teams competed in a 48-hour exercise involving 31 scenarios that
included ambushing vehicles, indoor shootouts, maritime interdiction,
train assaults, and a mock eviction of a right-wing Sovereign Citizens
group. The teams came from cities across the San Francisco Bay Area,
Singapore, and South Korea and included a University of California SWAT
team, a team of US Marines, and a SWAT team of prison guards.
But on Sunday, at a competition site near the Bay Bridge, our coverage was cut short. A police officer confiscated our press badges, politely explaining that his captain had called and given him the order. The captain, he said, told him we had been filming in an unauthorized location, though he could not tell us where that location was. (We'd been advised earlier that it was okay to film so long as we did not go on the bridge itself.) After several phone calls from both me and my editors, no one could tell us exactly what we had done wrong, but Sergeant J.D. Nelson, the public information officer for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department (which hosts the Department of Homeland Security-funded event) made it clear that we could not have our passes back.
We'll have a more in-depth report, and a lot more images and videos, in a few days.
But on Sunday, at a competition site near the Bay Bridge, our coverage was cut short. A police officer confiscated our press badges, politely explaining that his captain had called and given him the order. The captain, he said, told him we had been filming in an unauthorized location, though he could not tell us where that location was. (We'd been advised earlier that it was okay to film so long as we did not go on the bridge itself.) After several phone calls from both me and my editors, no one could tell us exactly what we had done wrong, but Sergeant J.D. Nelson, the public information officer for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department (which hosts the Department of Homeland Security-funded event) made it clear that we could not have our passes back.
We'll have a more in-depth report, and a lot more images and videos, in a few days.
Shane Bauer
| Tue Sep. 9, 2014 5:07 PM EDT
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) at the Senate hearing. The panel grilled Alan Estevez, a Department of Defense agent dealing with logistics and acquisition of military equipment; Brian Kamoie, a federal grant regulator at the Department of Homeland Security; and Karol Mason, an attorney from the Department of Justice.
Senators questioned why certain military equipment was on the Pentagon's list of acceptable items for local police departments. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) declared that police militarization gives him "real heartburn" and wondered "how did we get to the point where we think states needs MRAPS"—that is, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, which have been acquired by a large number of small police departments across the country. In Texas, McCaskill noted, police departments have more than 70 MRAPS, while the state National Guard has just six.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned what police departments could possibly do with the 1,200 bayonets that have been issued in recent years. The Pentagon's Alan Estevez replied that he was unsure. Throughout the hearing, members of the panel underscored the point that police officers are often not adequately trained in how (and when) to use the military-grade equipment their departments acquire. The Pentagon doesn't require police departments to undergo any training before supplying them MRAPS and other military equipment.
Estevez testified that the Pentagon would reevaluate its list of acceptable equipment for police departments. But Brian Kamoie, the Homeland Security official, and the Justice Department's Karol Mason, both acknowledged that their agencies don't do much to regulate how police departments use the grant money they dole out to local law enforcement.
McCaskill condemned the Department of Defense and the other agencies for their lack of oversight over the use of military equipment by local police. "None of them know how it's being utilized," McCaskill said. She pointed out that a police department in Lake Angelus, Michigan, which employs only one police officer, has received 13 military grade assault weapons since 2011. "I think we need to get to the bottom of that," McCaskill said.
Watch the hearing here:
No comments:
Post a Comment