ACLU Investigates Police Militarization

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

The American Civil Liberties Union 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.

Posted by zack991 at 05:59 PM | 57 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

zack991

Joined 2010/07/30
Visited 2013/05/24

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Union Prez: Fix Obamacare Provision (11 comments) ...

Real Chocolate Ammo tested, results may surprise you! (2 comments) ...

Biden: Gun Control Push Coming this Fall (8 comments) ...

Man Beheaded in London Terror Attack (292 comments) ...

Texas Announces Plans to Eliminate CSCOPE (8 comments) ...

Additionally, the ACLU 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. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

This police state we are finding ourselves in from bush and Obama is the USA "SS"

#1 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

please don't forget clinton's personal contribution.

ruby ridge.

going in armed to the teeth at waco rather than snatching koresh up on the streets a few days prior.

carnivore.

#2 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-03-06 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

This goes all the way back to Ronald Regan as well and his bs he pulled which the article covers as well. It was well before him as well but he is (R) God they love to quote so much, he did damage too.

#3 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, ACLU is being smart, obama and his gun control will soon come to an end.

There is a lot more politics going on here and obama won't like the outcome.

Go ACLU go!

#4 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think this goes all the way back to Hoover. It's just kept escalating over all the decades.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes it has

#6 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

This'll really have the loonies heads spinning as they ask themselves how things got to the point where they find themselves at once deeply suspicious of the ACLU while simultaneously sharing similar concerns. The difference, of course, is that the ACLU - unlike them - isn't looney. Without it, I'm convinced this country would be in even worse shape in terms of civil liberties than is currently the case - and that shape is, to my way of thinking, nothing short of shambolic.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-06 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love it when rightwingers find themselves cheering on the ACLU. lol

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-06 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love it when rightwingers find themselves cheering on the ACLU. lol

And apparently you don't seem to understand that the ACLU is challenging the democratic authoritarian liberal party, your party, which seems to have lost its way in civil rights. You should be sad for this 180 turn around.

#9 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know what the ACLU is attacking. This "your party" stuff is absurd so, please, seriously, stop making yourself sound so foolish.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-06 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Moneywar, is it even possible for you to oversimplify the positions of others anymore than you already do? lol

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-06 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry Doc but it is the truth, the information when gathered and going to court will be against what the authorintarian liberal democrat obama party is doing.

It doesn't take a scientist to figure it out.

#12 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The your party or that party is at fault is BS, both party's are one in the same. One is a bullet train the other is slower train, both are going the same way. They both want our rights stripped from us and more power given to them. The two parts are the cancer eatting this country apart.

#13 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

moder,

I call it as I see it, and I don't shield myself for party pandering like most here. It is sad that the democrat party doesn't see this, it will be there undoing and for a change it will be good.

#14 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

To bad, too late.

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2013-03-06 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The blind party hacks are here in force forever believing their party is in the right...LOL

This falls right in line with the old time filibuster going on right now, killing americans without due process with drones and the democrats don't see this as a problem.

#16 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This falls right in line with the old time filibuster going on right now, killing americans without due process with drones and the democrats don't see this as a problem."

I think Democrats do wee this as a problem. If they have joined Al Quaeda in Yemen and are plotting to kill Americans they have thus renounced any claim to citizenship here.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry authoritarian liberal danni, that isn't the way OUR laws work no matter how much you want your party to be right, it is against our constitutional laws.

It is with great sadness that we even have to debate this with you.

#18 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

*sniff*sniff*

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-06 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the police were militarized I doubt they'd arrest so many.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-06 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they could get away with it I am sure you would see more of it, people have their phones out quick as hell hoping to get a number one YouTube video hoping a cop crosses the line.

#21 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Sorry authoritarian liberal danni, that isn't the way OUR laws work no matter how much you want your party to be right, it is against our constitutional laws."

There are laws on our books, presented by Donnerboy in another thread, that say yes that is our law. It isn't about party, I supported our efforts to get Al Quaeda when Bush was President. Any President is going to use every tool at his/her disposal to combat terrorist threats against Americans, if they didn't and an attack succeeded they would never live down the shame. If you want to limit the President's power to kill even former Americans who become Al Quaeda terrorists, wherever they may be, you will have to get Congress to change the law. Then it will be their responsibility if an attack succeeds that could have been prevented by a drone strike.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

ACLU allies with Alex Jones!

#23 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-06 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

" to combat terrorist threats against Americans,"

What a lot of crap. Do you have a large supply of plastic sheeting and duct tape, by any chance?

There's nothing left but sheep in this country. We are screwed.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a good read.

www.popularmechanics.com

"SOLDIERS AND POLICE are supposed to be different. Soldiers are aimed at enemies from outside the country. They are trained to kill those enemies, and their supporters. In fact, "killing people and breaking things" are their main reasons for existence.

Police look inward. They're supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It's the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians"

#25 | Posted by Robson at 2013-03-06 11:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Police are militarized?? I thought those were cap guns they carried.
Glad we have the ACLU to rescue us from this threat.
Has the ACLU ever stood up for the Bill of Rights when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments?

#26 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-06 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good to see some common ground between true liberals (contra "authoritarian-liberals") and conservatives (contra "republicans").

#27 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2013-03-07 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

good idea. maybe the ACLU could take more, look into more, simple everyday complaints if they got the SPLC to do take that one.

God Bless the ACLU.

#28 | Posted by ichiro at 2013-03-07 02:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

#26
"Since I live in Texas, I'm embarrassed to say I was not aware of this story until I saw it in yesterday's New York Times: The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while "traveling" from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of "traveling" was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of "traveling" for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to "a criminal street gang," is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out.

"Given its mission, the ACLU certainly should be fighting such lawless harassment of innocent people. But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas chapter from getting involved, despite the national organization's position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since it does not believe the Second Amendment imposes any limits on the government's authority to restrict possession of guns, the national ACLU has never challenged gun control laws. By contrast, the ACLU of Texas supported statutory changes aimed at allowing law-abiding Texans to keep guns in their cars, whether for self-defense or while on the way to and from the shooting range, and now it is monitoring enforcement of the changes and recommending further revisions to ensure that the legislature's intent is implemented."
reason.com

[...]hat.

#29 | Posted by ichiro at 2013-03-07 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Want to get pissed off, look up no knock warrants that go wrong, cops don't double check for correct address or take the word of a criminal . They don't verify anything they are told and they just start breaking down doors. What happens is they kill innocent people and family pets when they break into the wrong homes, best part they are not held responsible for it and they almost never pay for any damage they cause to those homes. Also since police do not announce themselves in no knocks warrants and you get up thinking it is a bad guy kicking in your door, if you even scratch a cop they charge you attempted murder every time. Even though these ass clowns got the wrong address to begin with. YouTube has a large collection of the raids as well as google.

#30 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-07 05:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

For this to gain any results beneficial to working citizens one of the terrible five on SCOTUS must go.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-07 06:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they have joined Al Quaeda in Yemen and are plotting to kill Americans they have thus renounced any claim to citizenship here.

Sorry, wrong.

Renouncing citizenship takes a lot more than joining an organization like Al Quaeda.

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1.appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2.in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3.sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

Just because you don't want them to be american citizens doesn't mean that they aren't.

#32 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-03-07 07:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

OH HI! ACLU welcom to the party, most of us with IQ above 120 have been concerned about this for about 25 years......"better late than never" i think they say/

#33 | Posted by GotTruth at 2013-03-07 07:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

The ACLU has been working on a wide array of civil liberties issues for nearly a century. So, welcome to the party, kiddo. Better late than never.
~ The ACLU

#34 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-07 07:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"OH HI! ACLU welcom to the party, most of us with IQ above 120 have been concerned about this for about 25 years......"better late than never" i think they say/"

And just what, pray tell, have you done about it?

#35 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-07 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"For this to gain any results beneficial to working citizens one of the terrible five on SCOTUS must go."

From your lips to God's ears, not that I wish any of them harm, but only God will pry any of them out of their positions of power.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-07 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think the most important Constitutional Amendment we could pass would be to end the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-07 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Strange morning. I gave Danni a FF at #22 and Zack a NW at #30.

#38 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The most important right Americans possess is the right to be left alone by their government as far as possible. I hate the KKK, Nazis, skin heads, the New Black Panther Party, Black Muslims, because they are hate groups. But I would never prevent them from displaying their asinine views in public. The first amendment is there to protect unpopular views. I note that the leftist will shut down speakers on a collage campus if they disagree with the sentiments. If Billy Ayers can speak unmolested, then why not Ann Coulter or David Horowitz? In the marketplace of ideas the greatest danger is censorship- mostly promoted by the left now days with speech codes and direct action,(disruption of meetings and speakers, burning flyers and newspapers they disagree with, etc). Who are the new Fascist now? I guess the new left is a lot like the old right. I don't agree with the ACLU much of the time, but I am glad it is there.

#39 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I note that the leftist will shut down speakers on a collage campus if they disagree with the sentiments.

So you support one way freedom of speech? I shouted down may preachers when I was in college who came on our campus to recruit. Often found I knew their bible better than they did. The point is they had the right to say their peace and I had the right to say mine. To condemn me for speaking out is to be a fascist yourself.

#40 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The first amendment is there to protect unpopular views. I note that the leftist will shut down speakers on a collage campus if they disagree with the sentiments."

Why are you singling out art schools?

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you allow them to have their say or did you go out of your way to silence them? "You have not converted a man by silencing him." Gandi

#42 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you allow them to have their say or did you go out of your way to silence them?

Depends on your perspective. From their point of view, I was shouting to silence them; from my point of view, I was correcting their errors and expressing my counter thoughts to their opinions.

My point still stands: if you say A and I say "shut up," both are examples of free speech and to silence either side is equally wrong.

You brought up Ann Coulter: she can say whatever and the students can combat her points of view. If she doesn't want an exchange of ideas, she can keep to writing her columns. By going out into public and inviting the public to hear you, you are inviting contrary points of view to be expressed.

#43 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Shouting down a speaker who has been invited to speak by a group is not free speech, it is rude at the very least, and Fascist in practice. If you want to debate the speaker, wait until the Q and A. Most collage speakers worth their salt will debate you. Aren't you infringing on the rights of those who came to lessen to the speaker and not you? Your view seems a little myopic to say the least. I suppose you would be a little disturbed if the shoe was on the other foot. Say some leftist speaker's event is crashed by some right wingers and assaulted on stage, as Ann and David have been.

#44 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Shouting down a speaker who has been invited to speak by a group is not free speech, it is rude at the very least,

Freedom can be ugly, chaotic, and rude. I believe it was Larry Flynt who correctly said the First Amendment is there to protect the thought you hate the most.

You have moved Goal Posts BTW. Assaulted on stage is vastly different from me speaking at the same time as them. Assault is a crime; speech (so far) is not.

#45 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I suppose you would be a little disturbed if the shoe was on the other foot. Say some leftist speaker's event is crashed by some right wingers

I'm no leftist, but nice try.

#46 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Get a clue, DOCNJO. Ayers was shouted down by a right-wing nutcase that had to be removed from the room when he came to the University of Illinois. Coulter says outlandish things to get a response so she can play the victim. She's not interested in dialogue. If you can't see that, than I pity you.

#47 | Posted by micd at 2013-03-07 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your rebuttals contain a toxic amount of circular reason IE, I may do as I wish because I am right. If you disagree with me you are wrong, therefor can be deprived of the right to express your ideas. This is a serious deficiency in logic. But it is pure Fascism.

#48 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I may do as I wish because I am right. If you disagree with me you are wrong, therefor can be deprived of the right to express your ideas.

That ain't what I am saying, but nice try. I am saying both you and I have the right to express our opinions on any subject and to silence either of us is equally wrong. It is you saying some speech is more important than others IE a person speaking on campus vs the students responding.

#49 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is amazing that people are defending obama on this. Now obama doesn't need search and seizure, just drone strike and end it all!

This is how we want our government!

#50 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-07 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is amazing that people are defending obama on this.

Sadly, nothing shocks me anymore.

BTW, in my hiatus, I did stop by from time to time to see what was brewing here and your post as well as Nulli's on this subject made me very proud.

#51 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45 | Posted by kanrei:. . "From their point of view, I was shouting to silence them; from my point of view, I was correcting their errors and expressing my counter thoughts to their opinions". and "Ayers was shouted down by a right-wing nutcase that had to be removed from the room when he came to the University of Illinois", so it is alright for you to shout down a speaker you disagree with, but not to shout down a speaker you do agree with- typical Fascist logic.
The lack of respect and civility that passes for legitimate discourse is mind boggling. Ann Coulter provokes, William Ayers bombs. There is a serious difference between these two bomb throwers, one is rhetorical, and should be ignored, the other is in reality an unreformed terrorist by his own admission.

#52 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

so it is alright for you to shout down a speaker you disagree with, but not to shout down a speaker you do agree with- typical Fascist logic.

Already addressed that when you threw that strawman up in post 48. Saying it again only makes you unworthy of continued discussion. Have a good day.

#53 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Busted!

#54 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-07 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kan,

Apparently the people who are so enthralled with obama and party don't realize that giving him support in this will come back and hurt them in the future.

This isn't a party issue this is a people issue and the obamaites just can't seem to grasp this.

#55 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Militarization of the police? WTF does that mean? Has Posse Comitatus been reversed or something?

The police and the military operate under very different guidelines. That leads me to believe that the article is based more on the perception of militarization-that more cops are, possibly, trading in traditional police uniforms for more tactical-looking gear. Blousing their boots. Carrying semi-automatic rifles. But stating that this is an indication of militarization is like saying a military looking rifle is more dangerous (and consequently, should be controlled) than one that doesn't look like it belongs on a battlefield.

The only thing I saw that might raise eyebrows was the statement that police departments were being given surplus machine guns. This would be newsworthy if it were true, however by machine gun I suspect they mean standard military rifles which have an automatic setting. M-4s, for instance. There are plenty of uneducated people who would consider the M-4 a machine gun.

Unless cops have a need to lay down suppressing fire as a means of supporting advancing troops, machine guns won't do them much good.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-03-07 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag: