Between the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, the United States has witnessed a transformation of its law enforcement, from lightly armed neighborhood policemen to militarized units deploying weapons of warfare, including armored personnel carriers, as Brian J. Trautman explains.
By Brian J. Trautman
Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report titled “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing,” shedding much needed light on the emergence of a militarist ethos in policing across the nation.
In a review of public records, such as incident reports, requested from more than 260 law enforcement agencies in 25 states and the District of Columbia, the ACLU found that, from the responses received, 818 SWAT operations from 20 local law enforcement agencies located in 11 states fully met their research criteria, which took geographic diversity into account, among other factors. The SWAT incidents that were analyzed fell in the time period between July 2010 and last October.
A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle or MRAP, like ones now being used by domestic SWAT teams in the United States. (Credit: Grippenn)
Based on the ACLU’s examination, it was determined that paramilitary policing is neither sporadic nor isolated; rather, it is widespread and pervasive. Perhaps the most eye-opening and disturbing aspects of the ACLU’s report are the revelations of when, why and how Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams are being used.
The trend toward hyper-aggressive tactics of today’s law enforcement are having tragic consequences, for both civilians and law officers. Property is being destroyed. Civil liberties are being violated. SWAT teams are employing methods and equipment which have traditionally been reserved for war. For example, roughly 500 law enforcement agencies now possess Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles built to withstand armor-piercing roadside bombs.
According to the report, the root causes of the excessive militarization of policing and its reshaping of cultural values are numerous. They include the “War on Drugs,” the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and a series of Supreme Court decisions which have eroded the rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment and given police unprecedented access to private homes.
The report cites several incidents in which crime suspects or their family members have either been injured or killed during SWAT raids. These include the killing of a 26-year-old mother holding her infant son; the killing of a 68-year-old grandfather; a flash-bang grenade severely burning a toddler in a crib; and, the shooting (22 times) of a 26-year-old Iraq War veteran.
The ACLU also learned of various instances in which SWAT teams deployed when children were on the premises, sometimes when police had advanced warning that children would be on site. And it was not uncommon, the ACLU discovered, for family pets to be needlessly shot during raids.
There are five primary findings presented in the report:
1. The excessive militarization of American policing has largely been the result of federal programs which have incentivized the use of “unnecessarily aggressive weapons and tactics designed for the battlefield.”
2. There has been virtually no public oversight concerning the militarization of American policing.
3. In the majority of cases, SWAT teams were deployed to execute search warrants in low-level drug investigations, whereas traditional uses of SWAT (in hostage or barricade scenarios) totaled considerably fewer cases: According to the ACLU, “SWAT teams were more than twice as likely to force entry into a person’s home when searching for drugs than for other deployments.”
4. People of color were disproportionately impacted by paramilitary weapons and tactics and were the primary targets of drug searches.
5. War-like tactics and equipment are unnecessary and increase the risk of harm to people and damage to property.
The report also includes a number of recommendations. These include:
–Because the militarization of policing has permeated American society, systemic reform including a transformation in police culture is needed.
–Different agencies of the federal government are responsible for the trend of aggressive policing. Accordingly, reform should occur throughout government. Programs that incentivize the militarization of policing must be curtailed.
–Probable cause must not be the sole justification for SWAT teams to enter homes, even in cases when a search warrant has been issued.
–Appropriate restraints of SWAT should be developed by state legislatures and municipalities.
–Local police departments should develop internal policies and training that restrain officers and discourage a “warrior” mindset.
As mentioned earlier, the ACLU sought public records from law enforcement agencies nationwide to gain better insight into police capabilities and behavior. Not every state cooperated.
For example, law enforcement councils in Massachusetts refused to release this information, claiming that they were not government agencies but private, non-profit organizations, thus exempt from public record laws. Law enforcement in the Bay State has ostensibly turned to privatization of policing to avoid transparency and accountability.
The encouraging news is that in a press release dated June 24, the ACLU of Massachusetts announced it had filed a lawsuit against the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC) for records on their SWAT activities, arguing that the “NEMLEC operates with all of the privileges of a law enforcement agency, and like a law enforcement agency, it should be accountable to the public.”
Modern policing, which frequently treats citizens like enemies of the state, should deeply concern every American, regardless of political affiliation. Over the past two decades, the violent crime rate in the United States has decreased sharply. Innovations in computer technology have provided law enforcement with new crime prevention tools, especially in surveillance. The excessive militarization of American policing, then, is counterintuitive.
The drug war and counter-terrorism efforts may represent two of the official justifications for current trends in policing. Historically, however, nations have militarized their police to rapidly quell potential mass civil uprisings against tyranny and injustice.
Whatever the reasoning, abusive, hyper-aggressive policing against communities, particularly economically disadvantaged communities of color, as well as the stripping of civil liberties, are real threats to freedom and democracy and thus urgently require serious national attention and meaningful action.
Brian J. Trautman writes for PeaceVoice, is a military veteran, an instructor of peace studies at Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield, MA, and a peace activist. On Twitter @BriTraut.
The court rubberstamping of outright murder by local police is also now common, and fully supported by scams for the suppression of constitutional rights in the courts. The same courts have been opposed to constitutional rights from the beginning, refused to recognize them for a century until the Civil Rights Act of 1872, and refused to enforce them for another century until there were riots in the streets. The judiciary has never been more than a tool of the rich, whomever has the wealth or power to help or harm them personally.
Democracy means nothing to the courts. There is no democracy without a public forum of debate and free elections, whereas our mass media and elections are controlled by money alone, a mask for oligarchy. Plainly this militarization is the instrument of Gold, to circumvent the inconvenience of pretending democracy.
Of course I meant to refer to you as “Joe” (not “Ted”) in my reply above. Sorry.
Jada, thanks for your informative reply. Joe, or Ted is okay. I do know of what your talking about in regard to gold, but in recent times many have purchased a lot of gold as well. Yes, we will all survive, but my question is, what will our world look like after the NWO currency kicks in? Take care…Joe Tedesky
Ted, you asked “What if it becomes illegal to own gold?”
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but it was illegal to own gold in the US from 1933 to at least 1964. The sky did not fall because of this restriction then, and I have no reason to believe it would now — especially considering that convertibility of paper dollars to gold stopped permanently in 1971.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act_of_1934
I am not the smartest reader who post comments here, but I really try hard to comprehend all I read. Many, many articles I read about the economy of our beloved America are not saying very good things are happening in real time, or yet to come. While the U.S. throws around sanctions, I see us losing friends, and potential friends.
The short of it is, we may all be headed towards a new reality which would be a huge game changer. If the U.S. dollars does lose it’s reserve status, then what? Could we all wake up to a one world currency? Will inflation come back around to make our heads spin? This military gear that’s being distributed around to our American municipalities maybe just what’s needed to enforce order among the populace, when the new world order takes over. Or should I say, sprints the final lap of a well planned route towards gaining complete power over the commons.
It is possible it won’t be bad for most of us, but it will be something very different. More than likely, we will have even less rights than what we still got left. Last question, then I will go allow you all to cheer up…heck, it’s Wednesday, come on. Question; what if it becomes illegal to own gold?
Have a great day! I mean it!