9 ms·

From NASA to Amtrak, These Are All the Government Agencies with Tactical Teams

73 points by tomohawk 6y ago

joncrane 6y ago
HHS (The agency that administers Medicare/Medicaid in the US) has a 2-person SWAT Team on the rolls?
- tyingq 6y ago
  Maybe this? https://www.phe.gov/about/oem/prep/Pages/tactical.aspx https://www.phe.gov/about/oem/prep/Pages/tactical.aspx Like "guards" for the medical team?
- trothamel 6y ago
  They also have a lab with samples of smallpox. I suspect having people who know the lab and are trained to work with SWAT teams is probably useful.
  - thoughtstheseus 6y ago
    Having people prepared to deal with a wide variety of situations is highly advisable.
  - lumost 6y ago
    The odds that the tactical team is in the same state as the smallpox lab are disappointingly low.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  HHS is the parent of NIH, the CDC, and one of the US’s uniformed services, among other things, not just of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Their tactical team apparently belongs to NIH, which wouldn't have been my first guess.
  - sien 6y ago
    Lots of places that do animal testing has to watch PETA and beyond types. At my local university the Biology Department had more security than anywhere else on campus due to the threat of activists.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  It covers this in the article: >NIH's SRT, formally established in 2005, had previously been a hazardous materials response unit, but evolved to be able to respond to active shooters and other serious incidents at the Institute's campus in Bethesda, Maryland. NIH works with radioactive materials for medical research and infectious diseases, among other hazards, all of which present potential security risks.
noodlesUK 6y ago
I’m not tremendously surprised by this. Even in countries with largely demilitarized police, like the U.K., there are odd groups with tactical response forces like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary... What matters is keeping these sorts of thing on-task and within the scope that they were established for.
liability 6y ago
I suppose I'm meant to be disturbed by this apparent militarization of federal agencies, but I doubt NASA SWAT account for much if any of the civil rights abuses going on in America right now. Rather, most of that stuff is doubtlessly coming from the usual suspects (local cops, FBI, ATF, ICE, etc), not the oddball outfits. Maybe instead I'm supposed to think these organizations are wasting taxpayer money on matters that are outside their wheelhouse.. maybe that's the case. I can see why NASA would need a security team but perhaps that could be more efficiently provided by another agency. The article doesn't really seem to make this argument though. I suppose maybe I'm just being a grump and the article is meant for general edification with no agenda.
- nickff 6y ago
  I am not sure what the article's intended message is, but I take the view that this shows just how militarized the government has gotten. Aggressive, violent action seems to be the first resort.
- klyrs 6y ago
  > I suppose I'm meant to be disturbed by this apparent militarization of federal agencies... Alternatively, you could meant to be detached but curious or pleased with the transparency of this release. Or, you could meant to be gleeful about the heavy armament that various departments have, or distressed by the transparency of the release. I'm never sure what I'm meant to think, so I'd look at the tone of the article. It appears to be the detached, informative variety. One of the frequent complaints I've seen about militarized federal forces in DC and Portland is that they were largely unidentified. Is that lack of transparency concerning, pleasing, or neutral?
- jcrawfordor 6y ago
  I think it speaks mostly to the general trend of police militarization, which is both enabled and normalized to the extent that basically every law enforcement agency is expected to have a tactical unit, even if it's a relatively obscure and small agency. Of course this mostly stands out in the federal government, which is almost certainly wasting money by maintaining so many separate law enforcement agencies, especially when a certain degree of standardization is in place in that most federal law enforcement officers (but not all) train at FLETC. This makes you question whey there are a million separate agencies instead of one large one. And for the most part the answer isn't really a good one... just an agglomeration of history, with the most significant part being a result of the Inspectors General Act which basically created the situation that every executive branch agency has its own internal law enforcement organization. For example, given that the Federal Protective Service exists, one wonders about the necessity of so many executive branch agencies having their own law enforcement unit to protect their facilities. But then one wonders why the Federal Protective Service exists when there is some historical justification for assigning that duty to the Secret Service. And so on. Look at it this way: a similar controversy has existed at a local level over university and school district police departments acquiring ex-military equipment and establishing tactical units. Once again it's probably a lower risk than the municipal police department, but it does say something about the state of militarization. And then one can wonder why it is typical in many areas for universities and school districts to have their own police departments, which often face funding, training, and retention challenges compared to the municipal departments... Around here the university police departments have a reputation as a mill that pays for people to attend the academy, after which they spend their mandatory six months and then immediately transfer to a municipal agency with better pay. As you can imagine this does wonders for the quality of the workforce in the university departments. More broadly, this whole thing also touches on the uneven training and staffing standards for US law enforcement agencies, which seems to result in good part from both the sheer number of such agencies and the various peculiarity of the state laws under which they obtain their authority (e.g. consider states that do and do not commission security police). This should be less of a problem with federal agencies due to the de facto standards established by FLETC, but we've seen in e.g. Portland that the inconsistent policies of federal agencies with regard to oversight, use of force, etc. can very much be wielded against the citizenry.
throw0101a 6y ago
See also "SWAT World Challenge" that ran for a few years: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_World_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_World_Challenge Some interesting participants are US DOE/OST, DOE-Lawrence Livermore, and Bruce Power (which runs a nuclear station in Ontario, Canada): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power#Nuclear_Response_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power#Nuclear_Response_T... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Security_and_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Stati... There are a number of competitions, both local/regional and international: * https://policinginsight.com/news/international-event-dubai-police-to-host-the-uae-swat-challenge-2020/ https://policinginsight.com/news/international-event-dubai-p...
tyh 6y ago
If you are curious about the trend of the militarization of the police I'd suggest reading "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. One thing the book points out is that since the first SWAT team was formed in LA back in the 1960s, even law enforcement agencies with as few as 28 officers have SWAT teams. One of the things the author attributes this to is a "me too" attitude where one department hears another local agency has a SWAT team with special equipment and weapons. Somewhat jealously the agency decides they need one too. Even if the population they are serving has no history of the kinds of violent and/or dangerous crimes that normally require SWAT.
njharman 6y ago
TIL Amtrak is a government agency and not a private company. Sounds simliar to USPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
The IRS has ordered a Remington 870 shotgun that’s pretty interesting. It’s the MCS, shorty, illegal for civilians without a tax stamp. Same version used in Afghanistan for breaching. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-irs-shotgun/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-irs-shotg... Now... why the IRS needs them, IDK. But the real trip is the Dept of Education ordered the same ones awhile back. So... yay budget justifications?
- kipchak 6y ago
  According to one of the TFB comments they're for the IRS Criminal Investigation division.
- wtn 6y ago
  Tax agencies in the United States have criminal investigation divisions. IRS-CI Special Agents are authorized to carry and use firearms.
- baud147258 6y ago
  The IRS shotgun is for back taxes collection. /jk
rsync 6y ago
Tangent: All of these agencies also have firefighting crews. I learned this 19 years ago at ground zero. I saw a guy with FBI bunker gear on. I saw another guy with NTSB bunker gear on. There was a guy with US Secret Service bunker gear on. Who knew ?
dmode 6y ago
Why do each agency need their own ? For example, why can't FBI SWAT teams be also used for emergency responses for Amtrack ?

73 points by tomohawk 6y ago

joncrane 6y ago

HHS (The agency that administers Medicare/Medicaid in the US) has a 2-person SWAT Team on the rolls?

tyingq 6y ago
Maybe this? https://www.phe.gov/about/oem/prep/Pages/tactical.aspx https://www.phe.gov/about/oem/prep/Pages/tactical.aspx Like "guards" for the medical team?
trothamel 6y ago
They also have a lab with samples of smallpox. I suspect having people who know the lab and are trained to work with SWAT teams is probably useful.
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  Having people prepared to deal with a wide variety of situations is highly advisable.
- lumost 6y ago
  The odds that the tactical team is in the same state as the smallpox lab are disappointingly low.
dragonwriter 6y ago
HHS is the parent of NIH, the CDC, and one of the US’s uniformed services, among other things, not just of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Their tactical team apparently belongs to NIH, which wouldn't have been my first guess.
- sien 6y ago
  Lots of places that do animal testing has to watch PETA and beyond types. At my local university the Biology Department had more security than anywhere else on campus due to the threat of activists.
tidepod12 6y ago
It covers this in the article: >NIH's SRT, formally established in 2005, had previously been a hazardous materials response unit, but evolved to be able to respond to active shooters and other serious incidents at the Institute's campus in Bethesda, Maryland. NIH works with radioactive materials for medical research and infectious diseases, among other hazards, all of which present potential security risks.

noodlesUK 6y ago

I’m not tremendously surprised by this. Even in countries with largely demilitarized police, like the U.K., there are odd groups with tactical response forces like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary... What matters is keeping these sorts of thing on-task and within the scope that they were established for.

liability 6y ago

I suppose I'm meant to be disturbed by this apparent militarization of federal agencies, but I doubt NASA SWAT account for much if any of the civil rights abuses going on in America right now. Rather, most of that stuff is doubtlessly coming from the usual suspects (local cops, FBI, ATF, ICE, etc), not the oddball outfits. Maybe instead I'm supposed to think these organizations are wasting taxpayer money on matters that are outside their wheelhouse.. maybe that's the case. I can see why NASA would need a security team but perhaps that could be more efficiently provided by another agency. The article doesn't really seem to make this argument though. I suppose maybe I'm just being a grump and the article is meant for general edification with no agenda.

nickff 6y ago
I am not sure what the article's intended message is, but I take the view that this shows just how militarized the government has gotten. Aggressive, violent action seems to be the first resort.
klyrs 6y ago
> I suppose I'm meant to be disturbed by this apparent militarization of federal agencies... Alternatively, you could meant to be detached but curious or pleased with the transparency of this release. Or, you could meant to be gleeful about the heavy armament that various departments have, or distressed by the transparency of the release. I'm never sure what I'm meant to think, so I'd look at the tone of the article. It appears to be the detached, informative variety. One of the frequent complaints I've seen about militarized federal forces in DC and Portland is that they were largely unidentified. Is that lack of transparency concerning, pleasing, or neutral?
jcrawfordor 6y ago
I think it speaks mostly to the general trend of police militarization, which is both enabled and normalized to the extent that basically every law enforcement agency is expected to have a tactical unit, even if it's a relatively obscure and small agency. Of course this mostly stands out in the federal government, which is almost certainly wasting money by maintaining so many separate law enforcement agencies, especially when a certain degree of standardization is in place in that most federal law enforcement officers (but not all) train at FLETC. This makes you question whey there are a million separate agencies instead of one large one. And for the most part the answer isn't really a good one... just an agglomeration of history, with the most significant part being a result of the Inspectors General Act which basically created the situation that every executive branch agency has its own internal law enforcement organization. For example, given that the Federal Protective Service exists, one wonders about the necessity of so many executive branch agencies having their own law enforcement unit to protect their facilities. But then one wonders why the Federal Protective Service exists when there is some historical justification for assigning that duty to the Secret Service. And so on. Look at it this way: a similar controversy has existed at a local level over university and school district police departments acquiring ex-military equipment and establishing tactical units. Once again it's probably a lower risk than the municipal police department, but it does say something about the state of militarization. And then one can wonder why it is typical in many areas for universities and school districts to have their own police departments, which often face funding, training, and retention challenges compared to the municipal departments... Around here the university police departments have a reputation as a mill that pays for people to attend the academy, after which they spend their mandatory six months and then immediately transfer to a municipal agency with better pay. As you can imagine this does wonders for the quality of the workforce in the university departments. More broadly, this whole thing also touches on the uneven training and staffing standards for US law enforcement agencies, which seems to result in good part from both the sheer number of such agencies and the various peculiarity of the state laws under which they obtain their authority (e.g. consider states that do and do not commission security police). This should be less of a problem with federal agencies due to the de facto standards established by FLETC, but we've seen in e.g. Portland that the inconsistent policies of federal agencies with regard to oversight, use of force, etc. can very much be wielded against the citizenry.

throw0101a 6y ago

See also "SWAT World Challenge" that ran for a few years: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_World_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_World_Challenge Some interesting participants are US DOE/OST, DOE-Lawrence Livermore, and Bruce Power (which runs a nuclear station in Ontario, Canada): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power#Nuclear_Response_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power#Nuclear_Response_T... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Security_and_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Stati... There are a number of competitions, both local/regional and international: * https://policinginsight.com/news/international-event-dubai-police-to-host-the-uae-swat-challenge-2020/ https://policinginsight.com/news/international-event-dubai-p...

tyh 6y ago

If you are curious about the trend of the militarization of the police I'd suggest reading "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. One thing the book points out is that since the first SWAT team was formed in LA back in the 1960s, even law enforcement agencies with as few as 28 officers have SWAT teams. One of the things the author attributes this to is a "me too" attitude where one department hears another local agency has a SWAT team with special equipment and weapons. Somewhat jealously the agency decides they need one too. Even if the population they are serving has no history of the kinds of violent and/or dangerous crimes that normally require SWAT.

njharman 6y ago

TIL Amtrak is a government agency and not a private company. Sounds simliar to USPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

The IRS has ordered a Remington 870 shotgun that’s pretty interesting. It’s the MCS, shorty, illegal for civilians without a tax stamp. Same version used in Afghanistan for breaching. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-irs-shotgun/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-irs-shotg... Now... why the IRS needs them, IDK. But the real trip is the Dept of Education ordered the same ones awhile back. So... yay budget justifications?

kipchak 6y ago
According to one of the TFB comments they're for the IRS Criminal Investigation division.
wtn 6y ago
Tax agencies in the United States have criminal investigation divisions. IRS-CI Special Agents are authorized to carry and use firearms.
baud147258 6y ago
The IRS shotgun is for back taxes collection. /jk

rsync 6y ago

Tangent: All of these agencies also have firefighting crews. I learned this 19 years ago at ground zero. I saw a guy with FBI bunker gear on. I saw another guy with NTSB bunker gear on. There was a guy with US Secret Service bunker gear on. Who knew ?

dmode 6y ago

Why do each agency need their own ? For example, why can't FBI SWAT teams be also used for emergency responses for Amtrack ?