The Militarization of American Law Enforcement

[Ted Striker]

.

[David Floyd]

Federal welfare programs are unconstitutional because there is no provision for them in Article 1, Section 8. Short answer, because I don't want this to be threadjacked. Start a new thread if you like on the subject.

States, by the way, can have them, although I still oppose them.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Che is mostly correct about the origons of the LA SWAT and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The BPP started out doing things like giving food to poor people but were persecuted by COINTELPRO. Part of this included infiltrating the BPP and getting them to fight each other. To compare then to the KKK is racist nonsense. My source for all this is a history course I took a year ago which focused a lot on the 60s.

Im sure the KKK had plenty of BBQ's in it's time. All you can eat and more and while your here let us tell you how the blacks and Jews are taking over America. I'm not impressed with them handing out food. If you buy into "It's only for self defense" then I guess that is your right. But it only legitimizes their use of violence. Was the LAPD any better? In a lot of cases, no. But don't give me that bull**** about the BPP being in it for only self defense. Not all people in the 60's were about love and peace.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

I know where you are going with this berzerker.

I'm already there, greetings!

The government hands out money for the practical welfare of its own citizens, (who can spend food stamps at a place of their choice that accepts them) not so they can "recruit" people or improve it's own public image.

I see, "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help"? No, recruiting a political base has nothing to do with it

That's putting a big spin on the situation.

The spin is claiming the Black Panthers did this to recruit supporters while politicians don't.

You're just going to remove social security and welfare, unemployment benefits, because they are ONLY there for PR?

No, because these programs are unconstitutional and constitute legalized theft.

That's just outright ridiculous.

Well, I don't know about that, these programs were invented to get votes in addition to any other reasons.

Okay, watch what happens when those programs are removed, the entire country will go into chaos and plunged into the deepest Depression ever due to the resulting economic destruction that ensues. Bringing the whole world down with it.

Glory hallelujah! Government largesse has saved the world!!! These programs don't create wealth, they shift it around while wasting some on bureaucrats and nonsensical political pork barrel projects. If people were left with their own money, they'd generally find more effective ways to generate wealth.

PR has nothing to do with it.

Haha hehe hoho.

When you find yourself in dire straights some day and have no choice but to take advantage of some government program to tide you over, see how you feel about it then.

I spent several months as a "homeless" person and never asked for government to tide me over.

No way in hell you'd ever get my vote then!!!

Hmm...has something about having the government tide you over attracted you to the politicians who support these programs? Pretty good "PR" I'd say.

That's just outright cruel what you are advocating. There are alot of seniors out there who simply have no other means to exist other than social security.

Maybe if they never had to pay into this Ponzi scheme, they'd have even more money to retire on. Ever think of that? As for our position being "cruel", why is legalized stealing at the not so proverbial point of a gun compassionate? The average life span of a black male in this country is about 66 years, just in time to die after paying into Social(ist) Security their entire working life. I imagine there are a few million people driven into poverty by the "taxes" you're forcing them to pay to support wealthy retirees on Social Security; yeah, real compassionate.

Not only that, when someone explains to you that the economic ramifications are going to impact you personally anyway, I think you'll look at it differently.

How so? By your dire predictions of doom and gloom?

How are they unconstitutional?

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money on charity no matter what name it's given. Try reading it while paying special attention to Art 1 Sect 8...

[Wraith]

--"The other side of the militarization of law enforcement, not covered here, however, is the increasing use of paramilitary police forces"

Not in as much detail, but it is mentioned. They talk about the H&K MP5 and advertising.

And surely you could have found a better group to defend than the Black Panthers.

--"As an aside, here's a REALLY cool article on LAPD Swat."

Seems an odd topic for Popular Mechanics.
Interesting how they pay lip-service to their mission being capture/control, then go on to say that the policy is to use their MP5s in full-auto bursts at close range.

--"Basically it says that giving state police units more power is a bad idea."

It certainly is, but I don't agree that federal agencies need any more power.
Especially not when the BATF can get away with blatantly laundering military vehicle purchases through fake private companies.

--"My source for all this is a history course I took a year ago"

What level of schooling, and where? I think you'll find that the history taught in US public schools (at all levels, including university) has been heavily politicized. To what degree depends on the school, but you will not get anything close to an unbiased view.

--"The government hands out money for the practical welfare of its own citizens"

It's really hard to support that when you look at voting patterns and demographics.

--"You're just going to remove social security and welfare, unemployment benefits, because they are ONLY there for PR?"

No. I'd remove them, but not for that reason. They are unconstitutional, they amount to legalized theft, they can front as a huge vote-buying scheme, they can and are used as a means of increasing dependancy on government, and for these reasons should be ended.

--"When you find yourself in dire straights some day and have no choice but to take advantage of some government program to tide you over, see how you feel about it then."

Silly person. I've been unemployed. Know what I did? Got a job bagging groceries when I couldn't find better. Showed up to work on time, did my job, and didn't complain, and what do you know, I got a promotion and a raise real quick. Then I got a better job elsewhere, but that's another story.
The jobs are there, you just have to be willing to take them. The problem right now is that in so many cases the unemployment or welfare benefits are better than what you can get working, so a lot of people go "why work?" In Hawaii, for instance, you can get the equivalent of around $15/hr on welfare.

--"There are alot of seniors out there who simply have no other means to exist other than social security."

The government has already made promises to them, and it has to keep them. This can easily be done. You have no idea how much land the federal government owns. The proceeds from selling this off could easily be used to set up private accounts for any seniors dependant on SS, and probably get them bigger benefits than now.

Wraith
"Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent"
-- H. L. Mencken

[David Floyd]

I will say that Wraith is right, in that the people who have already payed into Social Security must have some way to recoup their money. I think his idea of selling off federal land is a good one, for starters.

[chequita guevara]

The BPP was/is a schizophrenic organization. At its worst, it was a drug gang (and possibly committed murder, but most of the convictions have been overturned). At its best, it helped the cause of Black liberation in many ways that most folks don't know about.

Part of the problem was that the BPP was very militant and very macho. This tends to attract poseurs and thugs, who then get to strut their stuff around on the good name of the organization, dressed all in black leather and looking quite sharp, posturing their manliness, and gettin' all the chicks.

The reason that the BPP served as an attraction for such folks is because it had started out doing things like standing up to the police, at a time when doing so would get you killed. They also started the first breakfast programs for school children, started the first Black history programs (yes, I know, of dubious value for those of you who don't think Black people did anything in America except whine), forced the health care industry to start taking sickle cell anemia seriously as a problem (which overwhelmingly affects Black people).

It also depended on the branch. The LA branch was a highly political, serious minded group. The Oakland branch, however, was little more than a gang of thugs. The Chicago branch was likely one of the best branches in the country. Seriously political, and the most dangerous. They had organized a truce between the city's gangs, and had started politicizing them and weaning them away from crime.

Now, on which part of group do you suppose the police focused? Was is the gangsters, thugs, and drug runners? Or was it the serious political branches that didn't engage in that sort of crime? If you picked the later, you're correct. Nearly all the people convicted of various crimes or assassinated by the police were the politicos, while the thugs and drug dealers were more or less left alone.

George Jackson was assassinted in his jail cell. Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were killed in their sleep by the police. Angela Davis was the subject of a nation wide police hunt because one of the guns that George Jackson's little brother used to take that judge hostage had been purchased by her. Ronald Reagan said he would seek the death penalty for her (she was acquitted). Geronimo ji-Jaga spent almost 30 years in prison for a murder committed while he was 600 miles away (a random murder of a white woman). And so on.

How many of the thugs and drug runners went to jail? I can't say that I know of any?

Wraith, it's not about defending the BPP specifically. They were the first group that came to mind and the one about which I could rattle a bunch of stuff without having to hit the books for evidence. In any event, the fact that a group is unpopular is no reason not to defend it. They were unfairly targetted by the police for repression, simple as that. Or should we also ignore what happened at the Waco compound because those guys were a nutbag cult with a leader that possibly molested children?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Richard Bruns]

[cynic]
Libertarians are doomed to failure because they foolishly and stubbornly cling to the antiquated and discredited notion that average people are intelligent enough to take care of themselves.
[/cynic]

On topic, I think that the military does have one very legitimate function in law enforcement. That function is to restrain abuses of local police. Ike's calling out the national guard to protect the black students from the police was a very good thing for our country.

Other than that, I think that they should stay out of policing. Seperation of powers is a very important concept.

[Wraith]

--"Are you too good to let the government help you?"

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, why should I participate in something I find morally reprehensible when I don't have (as in am not being forced) to?
Those programs are inefficent, blatantly illegal by the government's own charter, and they can operate only by acting in ways that are against everything I stand for.
I also understand how these systems actually operate. They are not funds, they are pay-in-pay-out. This means that I would not be getting my money out of some rainy-day fund, I would be recieving money that is currently being taken from someone who is working. There is an important ethical difference between the two situations that I cannot ignore.

I don't have principles only when it's convenient to do so.

--"Many states subsidize college tuition for schools within their states. Is that also unconsitutional?"

Depends on the state constitution. Now, I'm not familiar with the constitutions of every state, but they are a lot easier to change than the federal constitution, so my initial guess would be that they aren't.
Now, federal funds for college is another story...

--"No, it's not, it's to encourage the state to upgrade the level of the education of its population."

Heh. Sure. Just like government schools are meant to encourage the state to upgrade the education of the population.
Been in any public schools, university or otherwise, lately?

--"Okay experts, tell me exactly what is going to happen when you get rid of alllll those social programs that so many people depend on?"

In many cases, private organizations (most already existing) will take over, at least for deserving cases (which is where a big difference comes in).
It would be nice to have a phase-out period, as the programs change over, but US politics makes this inherently impracticle. I can't think of any program that was meant to be phase-in ever making it throught the phase-in period without being radically changed (and the larger-scale it was the more the change, it seems).

--"In fact I can't remember one single instance where I've voted and reference government funded programs to a particular politician."

It's mostly by party at the moment. The farmers vote for the Republicans, who push farm subsidies, and basically everyone on welfare votes for Democrats, who are always willing to hand out a few more bucks of of someone else's money.

Wraith
"Democrats are... the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
-- P. J. O'Rourke

[Berzerker]

Ted -

You guys both should have taken advantage of those programs. You already payed for them.

Whether or not we should have doesn't change the fact we are living refutations of your argument that we would call upon government for "help" when faced with difficult financial situations. Now, why would I want to take government handouts when I oppose them? If I paid "taxes" to have government provide me with a slave, should I accept the slave?

Why make things harder on yourselves than was necessary?

Should I steal your money to make my life easier?

Pride can bring you down, you know.

Nothing to do with pride.

Are you too good to let the government help you?

If "government" is helping me with money stolen from others, yes.

You could have spent the time retraining or exclusively looking for work.

I did.

Wraith you are a highly skilled technical person, you were wasting yourself as a resource by accepting lower skilled work because your state could have better used you as a technical worker, something it has a shortage of, not bag people at the grocery, which anybody can do.

We don't live for the "state", and Wraith made his own decision and no one can justly accuse him of wrongdoing for his choice because he did not victimize others.

Many states subsidize college tuition for schools within their states. Is that also unconsitutional?

Depends, read their constitutions. It's still theft...

Is that simply for getting votes?

I said getting votes was a reason, not the only reason.

No, it's not, it's to encourage the state to upgrade the level of the education of its population.

Educating me is not the "state's" business. The state's business is helping us to secure our freedom from criminals and nothing more. The irony is that this purpose for government - securing freedom from criminals - is at odds with educating me with money stolen from others. What is the relevant difference between a criminal who steals my money to educate himself and me using "government" to steal your money to pay for my education?

Some states have a problem of "brain drain," and have talked about a requirement that you have to stay in the state for a certain amount of years after going to a state sponsored school, to combat the problem. If you left the state, you'd have to pay the state sponsored tuition back.

If a "state" has a "brain drain", it's probably because the state has anti-freedom policies that give intelligent people reason to live elsewhere. But why is this relevant?

Okay experts, tell me exactly what is going to happen when you get rid of alllll those social programs that so many people depend on? Everything is going to run smoothly, right? Riiiiiiight...

Why do you use the term "experts" in an obviously derogatory manner when referring to us when you have made omniscient predictions about the future if these programs did not exist? I don't care if "society" runs smoothly, I care about freedom. Ever hear of charity? It tends to be decentralized and much more effective.
In the early part of the 20th century, out of wedlock births among blacks were single digit to the low teens with rates even lower among whites. After decades of social welfare programs, the rates for blacks is ~2/3rds with whites ~1/3. Making people dependent on government has been quite a success!

When you go to fill out unemployment, social security benefits, does it say ANYTHING on those forms at all about particular politicians?

I wouldn't know never having filled these forms out.

No it doesn't. In fact I can't remember one single instance where I've voted and reference government funded programs to a particular politician.

Politicians belong to parties. People know that every Democrat and virtually every Republican supports these programs because they belong to parties that support these programs.

It's great that you guy stand beside your ideals, but when practically applied, you're going to create a tremendous vaccuum that is going to destroy ALOT of people's lives.

That's another "expert" prediction But this "vacuum" would be filled by charities and job producers. And my lack of money does not justify stealing your money, if it did, you shouldn't mind if a poor person robs you without asking a politician to rob you for them. So, why would you call a cop when a poor person robs you?

Richard Bruns -

Libertarians are doomed to failure because they foolishly and stubbornly cling to the antiquated and discredited notion that average people are intelligent enough to take care of themselves.

You're confusing an opposition to "legalized" theft with Libertarian's opinions about the "average" person's ability to take care of themselves. Which of us is more qualified to make your decisions? Are you opposed to letting average people vote? If not, why? Since they cannot take care of themselves, how can they be qualified to vote for others to make their decisions? The truth is: the Libertarian Party won't make significant headway because most people do not believe in freedom and want the "government" to hand them other people's money.

On topic, I think that the military does have one very legitimate function in law enforcement. That function is to restrain abuses of local police. Ike's calling out the national guard to protect the black students from the police was a very good thing for our country.

Agreed. But the FBI could have done the same thing so it isn't written in stone that only the military can prevent these abuses. Was the national guard "Ike" called upon from Arkansas or another state? If he chose the Arkansas NG, it may have been to prevent the governor from calling upon them for his purposes.

Wraith -

"Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent" -- H. L. Mencken

And I'll bet he wrote that before Hitler and Stalin.

[David Floyd]

Agreed. But the FBI could have done the same thing so it isn't written in stone that only the military can prevent these abuses. Was the national guard "Ike" called upon from Arkansas or another state? If he chose the Arkansas NG, it may have been to prevent the governor from calling upon them for his purposes.

Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate, therefore civil rights laws based upon the 14th are unconstitutional in that they infringe upon States' Rights, which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and, by extension, the limits of the US Congress's power as laid out in Article 1 Section 8, and elsewhere. Therefore Ike's actions were improper usurpations in order to carry out illegal laws, based upon an illegitimate Constitutional amendment.
Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university, as the case may be, in order to enforce an unconstitutional federal law. The limit of the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement - if such a thing is even necessary, which I don't, necessarily, concede - should logically be federal property/districts, such as Washington DC and military bases.

[DinoDoc]

What the heck

Originally posted by David Floyd
Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate,

Its legality has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. So for the time being lets opperate under the mass delusion that it is a legitimate ammendment of the following tangent you started.

Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university,

What would you have them do in the instances when the state refuses to follow a duely constituted federal law?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Berzerker]

David -

Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate, therefore civil rights laws based upon the 14th are unconstitutional in that they infringe upon States' Rights, which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and, by extension, the limits of the US Congress's power as laid out in Article 1 Section 8, and elsewhere.

Agreed. My response was given within the context of reality - that the 14th Amendment has been accepted as legitimate by virtually everyone.

Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university, as the case may be, in order to enforce an unconstitutional federal law.

See above.

The limit of the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement - if such a thing is even necessary, which I don't, necessarily, concede - should logically be federal property/districts, such as Washington DC and military bases.

And I support validating the 14th Amendment to allow the federal government to prevent states from violating our rights. Unfortunately, it has been used to allow the feds to violate our rights without preventing the states from violating most of our rights, so I guess I should just oppose it.

DinoDoc -

Its legality has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. So for the time being lets opperate under the mass delusion that it is a legitimate ammendment.

Which is the problem we who know the 14th was never ratified have. If we make an argument recognising the reality that everyone else assumes the 14th is valid, then we appear to be ignoring it's failure to pass the ratification process. If we make an argument based on it's failure to pass ratification, we get into another long debate over why and whether or not it did or didn't pass.