Militarizing The Police – Part 3

 


It's prudent to be prepared.

So . . .

The Department of Homeland Security is purchasing 1.6 billion rounds __ yes, you read that correctly . . . 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Half of the order is for hollow point bullets and the other half for special armor and wall piercing ammunition. Hollow point bullets are forbidden by international law for use in warfare, so these cannot be for the battlefield. They are more expensive than regular bullets, so it doesn't make sense that, as claimed by a spokesperson for DHS, they are being used for "target practice". Besides, they only use about 15 million bullets a year on government
target ranges. 1,600,000,000 rounds is enough to keep them practicing for over a hundred years.

Along similar lines, the DHS will be taking delivery of some unspecified number of the 2,717 MRAPs __ mine-resistant and protected combat vehicles __ retrofitted by Navistar Defense, their manufacturer, for use here in America. As the linked article sensibly asks: "Why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone … yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America …?"

President Obama with his March 16, 2012 signing of the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order effectively establishes the right to impose Martial Law, at his own discretion even under peace time conditions, claiming full control over all of the resources of America, including even the labor of its citizens. This executive order expands his already extensive authority under the NDAA, which he signed on New Years Eve 2011 while none of us were paying much attention.

To make sure that no act of "terrorism" within our borders goes undetected, the DHS has established an expansive system of fusion centers coordinating its activities with those of local law enforcement
agencies, sharing information on U.S. citizens and intelligence about their movements and activities. The legality of collecting much of this data is questionable but it goes on because no one is able to challenge it. As we certainly know from the reaction of most public figures to the Snowden revelations, there is virtually no evidence in the national conversation or will in Congress of wanting to put a stop to this.

Yes, it's prudent to be prepared.

But . . .

We need to be asking ourselves, or maybe more appropriately those in charge of
rolling over the Constitution, chipping away at the privacy and legal
rights of American citizens, while quietly engineering and implementing
our New American Police State . . .

What is our government preparing for?


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Militarizing The Police – Part 2

 


Curl up in a tiny ball!

Hide!  Right now!

Don't go anywhere!

Don't say anything!

And for heaven's sake, stop thinking!

You've been warned!

Ignore this simple advice, you could end up like . . .

Aisha Jones or Roger Serrato or Eurie Stamps or Jose Guerena Ortiz or Pearlie Golden or Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams or Andy Lopez.

How did they end up?

Dead!

Killed by self-appointed judge-jury-executioner police, pumped up on power, their
inflated sense of duty, their skewed sense of justice, unrestrained by
many time-honored legal and constitutional mechanisms, which used to
make America a safe and desirable place to live.

People who don't end up dead are victimized in other ways. From a chilling but excellent article in the Huffington Post . . .

"The latest incident comes out of Atlanta, Georgia, where a SWAT team, attempting to execute a no-knock drug warrant in the middle of the night, launched a flash bang grenade into the targeted home, only to
have it land in a crib where a 19-month-old baby lay sleeping. The grenade exploded in the baby's face,
burning his face, lacerating his chest, and leaving him paralyzed. He is currently in the hospital in a medically induced coma.

"Where too was the outrage when a Minnesota SWAT team raided the wrong house in the middle of the night,
handcuffed the three young children, held the mother on the floor at
gunpoint, shot the family dog, and then "forced the handcuffed children
to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more
than an hour" while they searched the home?"

'Protect and Serve' is being replaced by 'Shoot to Kill, Ask Questions Later'.

We need to ask . . .

What prompts over 50,000 SWAT team raids annually, many of them unjustified and horribly botched often for infractions as trivial as home poker games, organic gardening, betting on a foot ball game, suspicion of music piracy, growing pot in the basement for personal use? These are hardly acts of terrorism compromising the safety of citizens or undermining the national security.

What happened to the constitutional requirement for search warrants?

What happened to restraint and respect for human life?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

What happened to common decency?

This is not a trivial matter.

Be informed:  A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Militarizing The Police – Part 1

 


Has everybody gone bonkers?

Okay, that was rude. Anyone who visits my website and reads my blogs is obviously
the textbook definition of completely sane, as well as being beautiful, intelligent, and 
beyond reproach.

But the other day, the picture you see here was posted on Facebook, aptly titled
along the lines of:  "Can you believe this? Why do they need this in
Doraville, GA?"

Okay . . . I completely agree with that sentiment. Doraville, GA is a sleepy town with 
less than 8,500 people. Why do they need a military tank?

But let me be candid:  What really prompts me to throw in my three cents here is
some lady who commented on the Facebook posting. I won't name this
person, because I don't want to hurt her feelings or tarnish her
reputation, even though it's patently obvious she's too stupid to boil
water. But what she said was mind-boggling, idiotic, horrifying, and at
the same time revealing of a mentality that seems to be metastasizing.
Paraphrasing . . .

"Of course, they need this. What if it was your daughter who was kidnapped,
and being held hostage. They could use it to save her!" 

Where do we begin?

Right off, let me point out that armored vehicles like this only protect the people 
inside them, the law enforcement officials charged with leading an assault against
well-armed adversaries, be they bank robbers, terrorists, kidnappers, or
rampaging postal clerks.

They do not protect hostages!

Next let me invoke my credentials as a novelist, using a degree of creative
license and just a bare minimum of imagination, to explain to this mentally
challenged lady what I would have a kidnapper character of my creation do
if the police showed up in this tank. I can't claim much originality,
since this is usually how this sort of scene plays out in real life.

Right off, my psychopathic antagonist would give them notice: "Listen, you short
bus meter maids. You've got one minute to turn that 8 ton hunk of steel
around and beat a retreat, or I put a bullet in the girl's pretty head!"

Then, if whoever was in charge of the operation didn't get the message, instead
deciding  to proceed with their fool's errand, my character would do
what any demented kidnapping psychotic would do. As the tank approached
the house, he would have one final going away fling by raping the girl,
capping off a quick but satisfying skrog by capping her (i.e. refer to
bullet allusion above), then blowing his own brains out, because even
though he's crazy, he's got pride, thus has no intention of being
captured and humiliated by a bunch of hayseed sheriffs in some 
backwater county in Texas or Missouri or Georgia.

So, lady who sees all the potential merits in having gear designed for use by 
our military on the battlefield in the hands of knucklehead local bumpkin
Andy Griffith police, whaddya think? How did that work out?

What is going on in America?

What logic prompts this kind of overkill?

What possible constructive purpose is there to the federal government giving 
__ handing over free of charge! __ $500,000,000 worth of heavy-duty military  
battlefield equipment to local law enforcement agencies, as it did in FY 2011?

First of all, the escalation of weaponry, that is, getting bigger and badder
machine guns, flame throwers, grenades, tanks and assault vehicles, just
ends up piling up more dead bodies, in increasingly smaller chunks of
human remains.

Second, what happened to American ingenuity? You remember that, I'm sure.
It's using the grey matter crammed into our skulls to figure out ways of
solving problems. In the hostage situation above, for example, crisis
management teams have psychologists and negotiators. They have marksmen
or stealth experts who can climb through heating ducts, and who knows,
maybe ways of making themselves invisible. What we have there is mind
power at work, as opposed to fire power. Which again alludes to the
simple fact, generally heavy artillery is not the best way of
extricating a frail young creature from a hostage situation __ at least
in one piece and still breathing.

So what is all of this stuff for? Why do small towns now have vehicles that was 
designed for use in Afghanistan, not the corn belt or even the most violent urban 
areas of America? Why is the Department of Defense giving this stuff to local 
police units?

I think I know. But before I get into it __ that will be in Part 3 __ I would love to hear your
comments. Please stick to the topic. I don't want any 2nd Amendment
raving or political rants from either end of the spectrum. Please just
explain . . .

Why are the local police being militarized in America?



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Just Say No! . . . To Duopoly

 

Two of my recent postings have created a storm of controversy. I've been
subjected to extremes of hyperbolic praise and acidic vituperation.

With a few welcome exceptions, The 'H' Word and When Hope Becomes Hype
have largely been judged as vicious attacks on President Obama, as in
personal condemnation of the man. His administration is certainly
fingered, because the specific lessons to be taken away are definitely
germane and unquestionable timely. While there's value in never
repeating the mistakes of history, what's the point of looking at
Eisenhower or Coolidge when there are hard lessons to be learned right
now? And how irresponsible it would be to not single out and identify
those directly responsible for the destructive policies and evident
treachery unfolding before our eyes in real time?

Let me candid about something: Fairly recently I concluded the President never
intended to deliver on his promises. However, during his first campaign
and the first few months of his presidency, I very much believed in Mr.
Obama and took the man at his word, whereas many others, including Glen
Ford of the Black Agenda Report, said he was not at all what he appeared to be. 
This was before the 2008 election.

While I've come to this same conclusion belatedly __ and that and that alone
is the thrust of my two controversial postings __ I am not interested
so much in berating Mr. Obama, as preventing the same mistake from
happening again.

The same mistake would be Hillary Clinton. Or Jeb Bush. Or Rand Paul. Or any
of the other duopoly pretenders to the throne who are already in the
limelight in anticipation of the 2016 election.

What's the difference between butterscotch and butter rum candy ? Sometimes I 
can tell. Usually they taste pretty much the same. Frankly it's such a close
call, it's not worth any hand-wringing or long, involved debate about it.

That's the choice we are faced with in our current political system. The truth is,
Democrat and Republican are in the long view pretty much the same flavor.

They are two sides of the same 1% oligarchic corporate-owned coin.

Heads or tails?

It's still a quarter. And it won't buy you a cup of coffee.

It won't even pay the bus fair to your second job or the unemployment office.

So what in my view is the lesson we take from travesty of the last few elections?
What can we learn from the play-for-pay politics of big money,
epitomized by Obama's currying the favor of corporations at the expense
of 99% of the American public? What can we do about the stranglehold of 
Citizens United and McCutcheon? What is the alternative to the the Democrat vs. 
Republican dog-and-pony show which has made meaningful voting a fatuous 
exercise in futility? How can you and I as citizens of our democracy-in-exile 
make our voice heard above the din of cronyism and Beltway banditry? 
It's really quite simple . . .

Just say 'no' to this sham. Just say 'no' to the fraud of Tweedledee-Tweedledum voting.

Just say 'no' to the duopoly which has as much relevance to real democracy as Monopoly 
has to the real economy.

Just say 'no' to the "lesser-of-two-evils" non-choice choice.

Vote your conscience, vote your principles. Do the right thing. Not the
brought-to-you-by Monsanto or Morgan Chase or big pharma or big fossil
fuel or media monopoly thing.

Here's one really great thing that Obama has repeated over and over:

Yes, we can!

I agree!

Yes, we can . . . say 'no' to the duopoly and start having real choice.

Support Bernie Sanders.

Support Jill Stein.

Support any "non-partisan" candidate.

Support those individuals who answer to you on election day . . .

Not Wall Street.

Not too-big-to-jail banks.

Not transnational corporations.

Not play-for-pay lobbyists and SuperPACS.

Not the Koch brothers and other sociopathic oligarchs.

Certainly not the corporate owned Democratic and Republican puppet parties.

Make your vote actually count for something.

Just say 'no' to duopoly.



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]