With newly purchased assault rifles, body armor and armored vehicles, “many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan,” finds the Center for Investigative Reporting, which has arguably done a better job than Washington of tracking what precincts around the country have bought with $34 billion in federal grants.
The money was allocated with the intention of fighting terrorism in the homeland, but CIR says the spending isn’t scrutinized very much and the situation is so out of control that the police of Fargo, N.D.—that hotbed of terrorist activity—now sport a “$256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret.” —PZS
Center for Investigative Reporting:
No one can say exactly what has been purchased in total across the country or how it’s being used, because the federal government doesn’t keep close track. State and local governments don’t maintain uniform records. But a review of records from 41 states obtained through open-government requests, and interviews with more than two-dozen current and former police officials and terrorism experts, shows police departments around the U.S. have transformed into small army-like forces.
Since Occupy Wall Street and similar protests broke out this fall, confusion about how to respond has landed some police departments in national headlines for electing to use intimidating riot gear, pepper spray and rubber bullets to disperse demonstrators. Observers have decried these aggressive tactics as more evidence that police are overly militarized. Among them is former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who today regrets his “militaristic” answer in 1999 to the infamous “Battle in Seattle” protests.
Many police, including beat cops, now routinely carry assault rifles. Combined with body armor and other apparel, many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list of equipment bought with the federal grants reads like a defense contractor catalog. High-tech gear fills the garages, locker rooms and patrol cars in departments across the country.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By Jim Yell, December 24, 2011 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I commented some time back about the “new weapon” that makes people feel like they are on fire. I believe it is sort of like being fried by low lever microwave. It was being offered as a non dangerous alternative to physical restraint and while also being presented as a military weapon it was also clearly only of use against crowds.
As we see the promiscous use of pepper spray and stun guns by police and security against even passive crowds I think we should be very worried about the out come of providing high power military equipment to civilian police and private security. It is a step in place to dictatorship. It disgusting.
By Bob, December 24, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not a frequent watcher but Pat Robertson warned against the militarization of our police in the 1980’s. He believed we were heading towards a police state then. Now with the patriot act and other recent proposed legislation cutting further in to our personal freedoms namely right to free speech and due process, one has to wonder how far off he really was. If at all.
Naomi Wolf in The Guardian and elsewhere)warned us about this several whiles ago—and Joshua Holland (Salon and elsewhere) now owes her an abject apology. Or will he instead say that supplying military materiel doesn’t really tell the police what to do with it, nor does it mean Homeland Security was involved—and then he’ll buy that bridge in New York.
This whole abomination shows what happens when
PRIVATIZATION is endorsed regarding public service. I
have no issue with government contracts, these, if
overseen are totally legitimate. But this is NOT what
happened during the Cheney years, oh… of course I
mean Bush.
These security “outfitters” were lobbying congress
and the administration and were receiving specific
contracts for ONLY their wares. This article doesn’t
specifically highlight that fact, but I remember
distinctly how this occurred.
Where I live the police dept wanted gear specific to
their actual needs, but they couldn’t get a dime on
the dollar to acquire it. Yet, they could outfit the
whole damn dept (and just about every public
building) with FREE bullet proof glass. So they did. It
was free (to them at least). And it was BOGUS.
We also got armored SWAT vehicles and other nonsense wares (not what was needed though), but these others were FREE or near FREE. Veteran officers thought it completely bogus, but there were those “hotheads” who now counted themselves among the “big men on campus”.
No one can say exactly what has been purchased in total across the country or how it’s
being used,
whatever… it pales by comparison to what was given to al qaeda coup insurgets in Libya and
the burgeoning insurgent army now building on the borders of Syria, e.g.
Published 08:08 18.04.11Latest update 08:08 18.04.11
Wikileaks reveals U.S. funding anti-government Syrian groups
Washington Post reports says State Department has been secretly financing groups opposed
to President Assad since 2005; the U.S. continued funding dissidents even while engaging in
talks with the Syrian government. http://tinyurl.com/7cxqxrw
By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press
Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’
 . '/' . substr('9780446505260',-6,3) . '/' . '9780446505260' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By berniem, December 24, 2011 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
Gee, does any of this tell ya who’s side Obama’s on? FREE BRADLEY MANNING!!!!
Report thisBy Jim Yell, December 24, 2011 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I commented some time back about the “new weapon” that makes people feel like they are on fire. I believe it is sort of like being fried by low lever microwave. It was being offered as a non dangerous alternative to physical restraint and while also being presented as a military weapon it was also clearly only of use against crowds.
As we see the promiscous use of pepper spray and stun guns by police and security against even passive crowds I think we should be very worried about the out come of providing high power military equipment to civilian police and private security. It is a step in place to dictatorship. It disgusting.
Report thisBy Bob, December 24, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not a frequent watcher but Pat Robertson warned against the militarization of our police in the 1980’s. He believed we were heading towards a police state then. Now with the patriot act and other recent proposed legislation cutting further in to our personal freedoms namely right to free speech and due process, one has to wonder how far off he really was. If at all.
Report thisBy gerard, December 23, 2011 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment
“My, what big teeth you have, Grandma!”
“The better to eat you with, my dear!”
Report thisBy joe servant, December 23, 2011 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thought we were broke…......
Report thisBy Fibonacci65, December 23, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment
Naomi Wolf in The Guardian and elsewhere)warned us about this several whiles ago—and Joshua Holland (Salon and elsewhere) now owes her an abject apology. Or will he instead say that supplying military materiel doesn’t really tell the police what to do with it, nor does it mean Homeland Security was involved—and then he’ll buy that bridge in New York.
Report thisBy Outraged, December 23, 2011 at 3:10 am Link to this comment
This whole abomination shows what happens when
PRIVATIZATION is endorsed regarding public service. I
have no issue with government contracts, these, if
overseen are totally legitimate. But this is NOT what
happened during the Cheney years, oh… of course I
mean Bush.
These security “outfitters” were lobbying congress
and the administration and were receiving specific
contracts for ONLY their wares. This article doesn’t
specifically highlight that fact, but I remember
distinctly how this occurred.
Where I live the police dept wanted gear specific to
their actual needs, but they couldn’t get a dime on
the dollar to acquire it. Yet, they could outfit the
whole damn dept (and just about every public
building) with FREE bullet proof glass. So they did. It
was free (to them at least). And it was BOGUS.
We also got armored SWAT vehicles and other nonsense wares (not what was needed though), but these others were FREE or near FREE. Veteran officers thought it completely bogus, but there were those “hotheads” who now counted themselves among the “big men on campus”.
This needs to be addressed, like yesterday.
Report thisBy blogdog, December 22, 2011 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment
No one can say exactly what has been purchased in total across the country or how it’s
being used,
whatever… it pales by comparison to what was given to al qaeda coup insurgets in Libya and
the burgeoning insurgent army now building on the borders of Syria, e.g.
‘NATO wants a simmering civil war in Syria—as a prelude’
Uploaded by Geonikacity on Dec 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_3vvv-4k7k
NATO troops on Syrian border - James Corbett - RT
Uploaded by syriansonutube2 on Dec 18, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qdVoLTOV0F4#!
Published 08:08 18.04.11Latest update 08:08 18.04.11
Report thisWikileaks reveals U.S. funding anti-government Syrian groups
Washington Post reports says State Department has been secretly financing groups opposed
to President Assad since 2005; the U.S. continued funding dissidents even while engaging in
talks with the Syrian government.
http://tinyurl.com/7cxqxrw
By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press