|
|||
|
Washington Funds Militarization of Police DepartmentsPosted on Dec 22, 2011
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
Advertisement Previous item: BofA Takes $335M Hit in Countrywide Settlement Next item: Gay Bloggers Take Down AT&T Goliath New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By berniem, December 24, 2011 at 9:49 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 8:08 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 7:04 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 1:17 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 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thought we were broke…......
Report thisBy Fibonacci65, December 23, 2011 at 8:05 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 2:10 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 7:29 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