It's a familiar storyline. In the 10 years since the terror
attacks of September 11, 2001, the government has claimed a number of new
policing powers in the name of protecting the country from terrorism, often at
the expense of civil liberties. But once claimed, those powers are
overwhelmingly used in the war on drugs. Nowhere is this more clear than in the
continuing militarization of America 's
police departments.
POLICE MILITARIZATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11
The trend toward a more militarized domestic police
force began well before 9/11. It in fact began in the early 1980s, as the Regan
administration added a new dimension of literalness to Richard Nixon's
declaration of a "war on drugs." Reagan declared illicit drugs a
threat to national security, and once likened America 's
drug fight to the World War I battle of Verdun .
But Reagan was more than just rhetoric. In 1981 he and a compliant Congress
passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which allowed and
encouraged the military to give local, state, and federal police access to
military bases, research, and equipment. It authorized the military to train
civilian police officers to use the newly available equipment, instructed the
military to share drug-war–related information with civilian police and
authorized the military to take an active role in preventing drugs from
entering the country.
A bill passed in 1988 authorized the National Guard to aid
local police in drug interdiction, a law that resulted in National Guard troops
conducting drug raids on city streets and using helicopters to survey rural
areas for pot farms. In 1989, President George Bush enacted a new policy
creating regional task forces within the Pentagon to work with local police
agencies on anti-drug efforts. Since then, a number of other bills and policies
have carved out more ways for the military and domestic police to cooperate in
the government's ongoing campaign to prevent Americans from getting high.
Then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declared in 1989, "The detection and
countering of the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs is a high
priority national security mission of the Department of Defense."
The problem with this mingling of domestic policing with
military operations is that the two institutions have starkly different
missions. The military's job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. Cops are charged
with keeping the peace, and with protecting the constitutional rights of
American citizens and residents. It's dangerous to conflate the two. As former
Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb once put it, "Soldiers are
trained to vaporize, not Mirandize." That distinction is why the U.S.
passed the Posse Comitatus Act more than 130 years ago, a law that explicitly
forbids the use of military troops in domestic policing.
Over the last several decades Congress and administrations
from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find
ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies
noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing,
the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic
police departments more like the military.
The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to
donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years
since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign
battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S.
streets, against U.S.
citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National
Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law
alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers,
and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America .
Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even
airplanes.
All of that equipment then facilitated a dramatic rise in
the number and use of paramilitary police units, more commonly known as SWAT
teams. Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern
Kentucky , has been studying this trend since the
early 1980s. Kraska found that by 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations
of 50,000 or more had at least one SWAT team, twice as many as in the
mid-1980s. The number of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 with
a SWAT team increased 157 percent between 1985 and 1996.
As the number of SWAT teams multiplied, their use expanded
as well. Until the 1980s, SWAT teams were used almost exclusively to defuse
immediate threats to the public safety, events like hostage takings, mass
shootings, escaped fugitives, or bank robberies. The proliferation of SWAT
teams that began in the 1980s, along with incentives like federal anti-drug
grants and asset forfeiture policies, made it lucrative to use them for drug
policing. According to Kraska, by the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT
deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000 and by 2001 there were 40,000. The average
police department deployed its SWAT team about once a month in the early 1980s.
By 1995, it was seven times a month. Kraska found that 75 to80 percent of those
deployments were to serve search warrants in drug investigations.
TERROR ATTACKS BRING NEW ROUND OF MILITARIZATION
The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent
justification for further militarization of America 's police departments: the
need to protect the country from terrorism.
Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade
Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork with a series of ads
(featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug
use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American
cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary
targets.
In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT
teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new
era, a new time," here,” one sheriff told the Syracuse Post
Standard. “The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so
we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to
use it.” The same sheriff said later in the same article that he'd use his new
SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too ... just a multitude of other
things." In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper , Florida -- which
had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade -- were
each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer
program, leading one Florida
paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”
In 2006 alone, a Pentagon spokesman told the Worcester,
Massachusetts Telegram & Gazette, the Department of Defense
"distributed vehicles worth $15.4 million, aircraft worth $8.9 million,
boats worth $6.7 million, weapons worth $1 million and 'other' items worth
$110.6 million" to local police agencies.
In 2007, Clayton County , Georgia
-- whose sheriff once complained that the drug war was being fought like Vietnam , and should instead be fought more like
the D-Day invasion at Normandy
-- got its own tank through the Pentagon's transfer program. Nearby Cobb County got its tank in 2008. In Richland County , South Carolina , Sheriff
Leon Lott procured an M113A1 armored personnel carrier in 2008. The
vehicle moves on tank-like tracks, and features a belt-fed, turreted machine
gun that fires .50-caliber rounds, a type of ammunition so powerful that even
the military has restrictions on how it's used on the battlefield. Lott named
his vehicle "The Peacemaker." (Lott, is currently being suedfor sending his SWAT team crashing
into the homes of people who appeared in the same infamous photo that depicted
Olympic gold-medalist swimmer Michael Phelps smoking pot in Richland County .)
Maricopa County , Arizona , Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has a
belt-fed .50-caliber machine gun, though it isn't connected to his armored
personnel carrier.
After 9/11, police departments in some cities, including Washington , D.C. ,
also switched to battle dress uniforms (BDUs) instead the traditional police
uniform. Critics says even subtle changes like a more militarized uniform can
change both public perception of the police and how police see their own role
in the community. One such critic, retired police sergeant Bill Donelly, wrote
in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, "One tends
to throw caution to the wind when wearing ‘commando-chic’ regalia, a
bulletproof vest with the word ‘POLICE’ emblazoned on both sides, and when one
is armed with high tech weaponry."
Departments in places like Indianapolis
and some Chicago
suburbs also began acquiring machine guns from the military in the name of
fighting terror. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick actually suspended the
Pentagon program in his state after the Boston Globe reported
that more than 80 police departments across the state had obtained more than
1,000 pieces of military equipment. "Police in Wellfleet, a community
known for stunning beaches and succulent oysters, scored three military assault
rifles," the Globe reported. "At Salem State
College, where recent police calls have included false fire alarms and a goat
roaming the campus, school police got two M-16s. In West
Springfield , police acquired even more powerful weaponry: two
military-issue M-79 grenade launchers."
September 11 also brought a new source of funding for
military-grade equipment in the Department of Homeland Security. In recent
years, the agency has given anti-terrorism grants to police
agencies across the country to purchase armored personnel carriers, including such
unlikely terrorism targetsas Winnebago County, Wisconsin; Longview, Texas;
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama; Canyon County, Idaho; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Adrian, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee. When the Memphis suburb of Germantown ,
Tennessee -- which claims to be
one of the safest cities in the country -- got its APC in 2006, its sheriff
told the local paper that the acquisition would put the town at the
"forefront" of homeland security preparedness.
In Eau Clare County, Wisconsin, government officials told
the Leader Telegram that the county's new APC would mitigate
"the threat of weapons or explosive devices." County board member Sue
Miller added, "It’s nice, but I hope we never have to use it." But
later in the same article, Police Chief Jerry Matysik says he planned to use the
vehicle for other purposes, including "drug searches." It may not be
necessary, Matysik said, "But because it’s available, we’ll probably use
it just to be cautious."
The DHS grants are typically used to purchase the Lenco Bearcat, a
modified armored personnel carrier that sells for $200,000 to $300,000. The
vehicle has become something of a status symbol in some police
departments, who often put out press releases with photos of the purchase, along
with posing police officers clad in camouflage or battle dress
uniforms.
HuffPost sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the
Department of Homeland Security asking just how many grants for the vehicles
have been given out since September 11, how much taxpayer money has been spent
on them, and which police agencies have received them. Senior FOIA Program
Specialist Angela Washington said that this information isn't available.
The post-September 11 era has also seen the role of SWAT
teams and paramilitary police units expand to enforce nonviolent crimes beyond
even the drug war. SWAT teams have been used tobreak up neighborhood poker games,
sent into bars and fraternities suspected of allowing underage drinking, and even to enforce alcohol and occupational licensing regulations. Earlier
this year, the Department of Education sent its SWAT team to the home of
someone suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.
Kraska estimates the total number of SWAT deployments per
year in the U.S.
may now top 60,000, or more than 160 per day. In 2008, the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring
every police department in the state to issue a bi-annual report on how it uses
its SWAT teams. The bill was passed in response to the mistaken and violent
SWAT raid on the home of Berwyn
Heights , Maryland
mayor Cheye Calvo, during which a SWAT team shot and killed his two black labs.
The first reports showed an average of 4.5 SWAT raids per day in that state
alone.
Critics like Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief
in both San Jose , California ,
and Kansas City , Missouri , worry that this trend, now driven
by the war on terror in addition to the war on drugs, have caused police to
lose sight of their role as keepers of the peace.
"Simply put, the police culture in our country has
changed," McNamara wrote in a 2006 article for the Wall Street Journal.
"An emphasis on 'officer safety' and paramilitary training pervades
today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't
shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed." Noting the
considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, "Concern about
such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given
way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime
and must be heavily armed."
In 2009, stimulus spending became another way to fund
militarization, with police departmentsrequesting federal cash for armored vehicles, SWAT
armor, machine guns, surveillance drones, helicopters, and all manner of other
tactical gear and equipment.
Like McNamara, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper
finds all of this troubling. "We needed local police to play a legitimate,
continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001," says
Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "After all,
the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific
police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing
militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache
as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to ramp up the drug
war. It's just tragic."
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want to hear from you but any comment that advocates violence, illegal activity or that contains advertisements that do not promote activism or awareness, will be deleted.