America's attention recently turned away from the violence in Iraq and Gaza
toward the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting of Michael
Brown. While all the facts surrounding the shooing have yet to come to light,
the shock of seeing police using tear gas (a substance banned in warfare),
and other military-style weapons against American citizens including journalists
exercising their First Amendment rights, has started a much-needed debate on
police militarization.
The increasing use of military equipment by local police is a symptom of growing
authoritarianism, not the cause. The cause is policies that encourage police
to see Americans as enemies to subjugate, rather than as citizens to "protect
and serve." This attitude is on display not only in Ferguson, but in the police
lockdown following the Boston Marathon bombing and in the Americans killed
and injured in "no-knock" raids conducted by militarized SWAT teams.
One particularly tragic victim of police militarization and the war on drugs
is "baby Bounkham." This infant was severely burned and put in a coma by a
flash-burn grenade thrown into his crib by a SWAT team member who burst into
the infant's room looking for methamphetamine.
As shocking as the case of baby Bounkham is, no one should be surprised that
empowering police to stop consensual (though perhaps harmful and immoral) activities
has led to a growth of authoritarian attitudes and behaviors among government
officials and politicians. Those wondering why the local police increasingly
look and act like an occupying military force should consider that the drug
war was the justification for the Defense Department's "1033 program," which
last year gave local police departments almost $450 million worth of "surplus" military
equipment. This included armored vehicles and grenades like those that were
used to maim baby Bounkham.
Today, the war on drugs has been eclipsed by the war on terror as an all-purpose
excuse for expanding the police state. We are all familiar with how the federal
government increased police power after September 11 via the PATRIOT Act, TSA,
and other Homeland Security programs. Not as widely known is how the war on
terror has been used to justify the increased militarization of local police
departments to the detriment of our liberty. Since 2002, the Department of
Homeland Security has provided over $35 billion in grants to local governments
for the purchase of tactical gear, military-style armor, and mine-resistant
vehicles.
The threat of terrorism is used to justify these grants. However, the small
towns that receive tanks and other military weapons do not just put them into
storage until a real terrorist threat emerges. Instead, the military equipment
is used for routine law enforcement.
Politicians love this program because it allows them to brag to their local
media about how they are keeping their constituents safe. Of course, the military-industrial
complex's new kid brother, the law enforcement-industrial complex, wields tremendous
influence on Capitol Hill. Even many so-called progressives support police
militarization to curry favor with police unions.
Reversing the dangerous trend of the militarization of local police can start
with ending all federal involvement in local law enforcement. Fortunately,
all that requires is for Congress to begin following the Constitution, which
forbids the federal government from controlling or funding local law enforcement.
There is also no justification for federal drug laws or for using the threat
of terrorism as an excuse to treat all people as potential criminals. However,
Congress will not restore constitutional government on its own; the American
people must demand that Congress stop facilitating the growth of an authoritarian
police state that threatens their liberty.
