• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
8,661
Reaction score
5,306
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a nationwide campaign to assess police militarization in the United States. Starting Wednesday, ACLU affiliates in 23 states are sending open records requests to hundreds of state and local police agencies requesting information about their SWAT teams, such as how often and for what reasons they're deployed, what types of weapons they use, how often citizens are injured during SWAT raids, and how they're funded. More affiliates may join the effort in the coming weeks.

Additionally, the affiliates will ask for information about drones, GPS tracking devices, how much military equipment the police agencies have obtained through programs run through the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, and how often and for what purpose state National Guards are participating in enforcement of drug laws.

"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."

The timing of this comes right as Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours as part of the filibuster to block Obama's CIA nomination:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” Paul said.

We need transparency on these issues. Our POTUS should not be overriding the Constitution. Our police should not be militarizing. The American People are not the enemy, they are the foundation of this country. Our rights MUST remain enshrined and maintained. Any of our lawmakers who refuse to place that as the highest priority of the United States is a traitor.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this ACLU effort completely.

on a more humorous note, it will be fun to see ACLU-hating conservatives on board with this one. maybe they'll finally figure out that the ACLU isn't the demon that the confirmation bias salesmen paint it as.
 
American police and law enforcement have been "militarizing" for decades.... the difference at the moment is that there is a Democrat and a black guy in the White House doing it. Funny how Rand Paul had no problem with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on.. talk about militarizing society there.
 
American police and law enforcement have been "militarizing" for decades.... the difference at the moment is that there is a Democrat and a black guy in the White House doing it. Funny how Rand Paul had no problem with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on.. talk about militarizing society there.

Didn't Rand Paul show up on the political scene in 2007? Patriot Act was in 2001. The extension was in 2011, and he was one of the few people who oppossed it. He is also quoted for saying, "Sometimes conservatives seem to believe that giving the federal government unprecedented power in spying or warrantless wiretapping is somehow a positive development, but this is exactly the sort of intrusiveness the Founders feared most. This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms."

Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p.124 , Feb 22, 2011
 
Didn't Rand Paul show up on the political scene in 2007? Patriot Act was in 2001. The extension was in 2011, and he was one of the few people who oppossed it. He is also quoted for saying, "Sometimes conservatives seem to believe that giving the federal government unprecedented power in spying or warrantless wiretapping is somehow a positive development, but this is exactly the sort of intrusiveness the Founders feared most. This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms."

Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p.124 , Feb 22, 2011

And yet he voted for reissuing the Patriot Act... so much for sticking to principles eh?

And my comment was more towards the right wingers in congress and on these boards that are being critical of the Obama administration on this and other issues, but the same people were not critical of Bush and his administration when he did the same or worse.. hypocrisy at its best.
 
I applaud the ACLU for starting to ask questions.
Sometimes I think their motives are suspect, and they are too selective in the
rights they support.
I remember when they defended the KKK's right to not release it's membership list.
It was later found they did so, as to not set a precedent for them releasing their own
membership list.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to appropriate location
 
And yet he voted for reissuing the Patriot Act... so much for sticking to principles eh?

And my comment was more towards the right wingers in congress and on these boards that are being critical of the Obama administration on this and other issues, but the same people were not critical of Bush and his administration when he did the same or worse.. hypocrisy at its best.

Indeed, hypocrisy at it's best. Just like those lecturing, ranting, and raving at people treating a situation differently based on the person in power and completely and utterly failing to mention their own side doing the same thing in reverse.

Also, as a note, the PATRIOT Act is an extensive bill that covers a lot of ground. Simply voting to reauthorize it is not in and of itself a blanket statement of having "no issues" with it, but rather that ones issues with it are not enough to warrant a vote against it. Rand Paul's filibuster came about due to a specific issue in a specific type of instance. Comparing the two is a bit dishonest.

Not to mention, perhaps before you hypocritically start slinging stones at one sides "hypocrisy" and crticizing a person you should do some general research...

Paul and Reid have been publicly sparring all week over the proposed extension of the anti-terrorism law, first passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Paul, elected with support from the tea party last November, opposes reauthorizing the law in its current form, saying it violates Americans' right to privacy.

Link

In a move that should be getting more notice this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has thrown down the gauntlet over the renewal of the Patriot Act, provisions of which would expire Friday if not extended. Paul has offered several "controversial" amendments to the bill, and could single-handedly cause the Patriot Act to lapse for a day, The Hill reported today

...

What are these so-called "controversial" changes to the post-9/11 act -- which expanded governmental search powers -- that Paul wants? "Controversial" things like requiring the government seek a judge's approval before conducting a search of someone's credit cards, emails, library books, bank statements, and business records or conducting a "roving wiretap," and requiring the government to actually come up with probable cause before searching such records or executing such wiretaps.

...

On the Senate floor, Paul argued that's a false dichotomy and searching records without probable cause could actually make us less safe, as it wastes time from legitimate suspects.
"You can be opposed to terrorists ... but we can do it with a process that protects the innocent," Paul said.

Link

Sure sounds like he had "some problem" at least with it.

Though funny you rant and rave about the "hypocrisy" of Rand Paul and the right, but nary a word for the likes of Harry Reid, who proudly proclaimed in 2005 (When a white republican was in the white house) that they managed to "Kill the Patriot Act" and opposed it during previous reauthorizations (Back when that white republican was in power) but raised the spectre of "the terrorists will get us" to accuse Paul of trying to make us "less safe" in 2011. It's funny you rant about the "hypocrisy" of the right while ignoring that the Senator who largely stayed to argued against Paul's issue with federal, military style strikes against american citizens on american soil without any due process is the same one who sat in the Senator (back when a white republican was in the white house) and compared us to Nazis, Pol Pot, and the USSR due to violation of human and civil rights.

Hypocrisy indeed.
 
ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

The timing of this comes right as Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours as part of the filibuster to block Obama's CIA nomination:

We need transparency on these issues. Our POTUS should not be overriding the Constitution. Our police should not be militarizing. The American People are not the enemy, they are the foundation of this country. Our rights MUST remain enshrined and maintained. Any of our lawmakers who refuse to place that as the highest priority of the United States is a traitor.

What does "militarizing" the police mean? If it means they are arming themselves better than the dangerous criminals they face, I'm all for it.
 
It's OK because they are peace Officers. Swat teams were designed to get the perp without losing LEO lives. Their mission is to take the perp alive.

Drones, on the other hand, should only be used for surveillance. They should never fire upon US citizens. That would be a travesty of justice.
 
It's OK because they are peace Officers. Swat teams were designed to get the perp without losing LEO lives. Their mission is to take the perp alive.

Drones, on the other hand, should only be used for surveillance. They should never fire upon US citizens. That would be a travesty of justice.

I agree with this. Drones are R/C aircraft essentially. Just a little more high tech. No need to freak on that. Obviously no shooting needed. That is a flagrant violation of rights.

I also know several LEOs in gang units and swat teams. I'd be very careful about limiting their technology. Certain "military" technology has been key in saving lives. 40mm tear gas grenades Smoking suspects out? Armored vehicles allowing close in vehicles for raids? EOD bots? Super accurate rifles? .223s that provide a stronger punch than a 9mm sub. Tactics that have been brought back from Iraq or Afghanistan for peace keeping operations? Things like sonic weaponry and lasers? I don't want to see police limited to .38 specials and a wooden baton...or even worse...pepper spray an a baton.

I understand the position the ACLU I coming from, but I would also post a strong word of caution on what exactly they plan on limiting in terms of technology.
 
I'm amazed that even when dealing with a topic that affects our civil rights, the people at DP manage to turn it into a partisan bitch fest. WHY DOES IT MATTER who brought up the issue in congress?

Shame on all of you.
 
the difference at the moment is that there is a Democrat and a black guy in the White House doing it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.



Funny how Rand Paul had no problem with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on.. talk about militarizing society there.

I do enjoy when you put your ignorance on display for all to see, which is pretty frequent.

Harry Reid, Rand Paul
 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.





I do enjoy when you put your ignorance on display for all to see, which is pretty frequent.

Harry Reid, Rand Paul

You should read your own links... Rand Paul voted yes because he got a few amendments..
 
What does "militarizing" the police mean? If it means they are arming themselves better than the dangerous criminals they face, I'm all for it.

It means that they are being given armored vehicles, military-grade uniforms, and military-grade weapons in order to deal with criminals.

However, there is a great difference between "dangerous criminals" and petty criminals. And all too often the police are using their military-grade hardware against the latter, which is an overuse of force.

Dan Carlin - a podcaster whose political show "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" - did an episode where he talks about the militarization of the police force. And most of this militarization has to do with drug laws.

What it is is that private property suspected to be used in drug crimes can be impounded by the police and then auctioned off. And for a suspect to get his property back he has to the sue the government - rather than the government first finding him guilty and then auctioning off this impounded property.

What this means is that police forces can, essentially, steal the private property of suspects - not convicts but just suspects - of drug crimes in order to acquire more money for themselves.

It should also be noted that drug laws are basically the only kind of laws that the federal government provides money and equipment to local law enforcement to enforce. Thus, the federal government provides economic incentives to police forces to go after drug suspects - and those are the only kinds of suspects that police have economic incentives to go after.

Also, the Patriot Act was passed in order to go after terrorist suspects, and law enforcement were given federal funds to set up anti-terrorist squads. But it should be noted that the Patriot Act has been asserted by the government in something like 16 terrorist cases while it has been used to prosecute at least a thousand drug cases. And that those anti-terrorist police squads have been slowly dual-roled into anti-drug efforts until they are used more against drug criminals than against possible terrorists.

These are all issues because abridgements of constitutional rights to go after terrorist suspects have been expanded to include those suspected of drug crimes - not those convicted but merely those who are suspects. It also highlights potential abuses of law enforcement since they can accuse of any citizen of being a drug criminal in order to impound that citizen's private property and make that law enforcement agency wealthier.

So you are right in that the police should be well armed against dangerous criminals. But what it's turning into is the police arming themselves to take the property of suspects in order to loot their wealth.
 
I wonder what percentage of SWAT missions are drug raids vs real police work.

Posse Comitatus starts to seem like a bit of a joke when you can't distinguish the police from soldiers.
 
I wonder what percentage of SWAT missions are drug raids vs real police work.

Posse Comitatus starts to seem like a bit of a joke when you can't distinguish the police from soldiers.

Which is exactly the reason for concern with the increased militarization of police forces.

Mayor Bloomberg claimed he has the 7th largest army in the world: the NYPD.
 
ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation



The timing of this comes right as Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours as part of the filibuster to block Obama's CIA nomination:



We need transparency on these issues. Our POTUS should not be overriding the Constitution. Our police should not be militarizing. The American People are not the enemy, they are the foundation of this country. Our rights MUST remain enshrined and maintained. Any of our lawmakers who refuse to place that as the highest priority of the United States is a traitor.



In today's information age we should have access to all of this information on the web, at our fingertips. Is this our country and our government? Or are we subjects and serfs who are lorded over and told not to worry what the police are doing?
 
You should read your own links... Rand Paul voted yes because he got a few amendments..

You should read your own posts. You said he had "no problem" with it. :lamo
 
What does "militarizing" the police mean? If it means they are arming themselves better than the dangerous criminals they face, I'm all for it.

Militarizing the police means just what it says. The most obvious sign of that process is SWAT teams, Special Weapons and Tactics. Military style.

It was a direct result of the confluence of poor public policy--the drug war--and excess military hardware such as helicopters and armored personnel carriers.
 
I support the effort to the hilt, but I'm not optimistic at all about the outcome.

Henry David above nails it:

It was a direct result of the confluence of poor public policy--the drug war--and excess military hardware such as helicopters and armored personnel carriers.

Police militarization is the result of decades of trying to apply a warfighting paradigm to civilian policing. It largely began during the Vietnam era, when the Watts Riot exposed the limitations of a conventional gendarmerie in keeping peace during mass discontent, and expanded greatly under Nixon's War on Drugs. A lot of the people who came to power in urban police departments at that time had direct command experience in Vietnam, and tried to import that model wholesale. Matters worsened under Reagan and Bush I, and finally became completely standardized as the national model for anti-drug enforcement when Clinton appointed Gulf War General Barry McCaffrey to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

I don't know that you can mitigate the worst effects of police militarization without a total overhaul of the underlying basic conditions of law enforcement in this agency; that includes the "war" paradigm altogether, as in the War on Drugs.
 
Back
Top Bottom