33 ms·

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

224 points by gagan2020 13y ago

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change in the nature of SWAT. Now the teams are being used increasingly as shock police forces, bringing an escalated level of violence to a situation in order to overwhelm any possibility of danger to the officers or general public. Seeing guys like the FDA, DOE, or EPA with their own SWAT teams is a bit unsettling, to say the least. One wonders where this will all stop.
- big-jdx 13y ago
  Does that tie in to the recent stories about the Feds buying so much ammo? So many indicators lately that are disturbing. *edited to add link http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billio...
  - rocky1138 13y ago
    Do you have a source for this?
  - kahirsch 13y ago
    The numbers that were given were contracts that allowed them to purchase up to that amount of ammunition at a given price over 5 years. The actual quantity purchased last year was more than an order of magnitude less than reported.[1] [1]http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2 http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&...
- rocky1138 13y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Relevant: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-p...
  - subsystem 13y ago
    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/12/201212279357713630.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012... http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear-2913 http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tec... http://www.aclu.org/militarization http://www.aclu.org/militarization http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/growing-militarisation-police-0021931 http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/growing-militarisation-pol... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-america... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/03/occupy-militarisation-policing-protest http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/... http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/12/police-militarization-in-the-decade-following-911/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/12/police-milit... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-... http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-in... The video in the first link is probably the most interesting. Edit: Also shouldn't forget http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/
    - hga 13y ago
      Never forget Radley Balko on this topic, and he's got a new book out, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610392116/ http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americ...) as well as an old, hard/$$$ to find one, *Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America (http://www.amazon.com/Overkill-Paramilitary-Police-Raids-America/dp/B0034ANHS0/ http://www.amazon.com/Overkill-Paramilitary-Police-Raids-Ame...). Makes for very depressing reading.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations" Your news is about 30 years out of date. Since the late 80s, there has been a massive increase in the use of paramilitary police teams to serve basic search-and-arrest warrants. SWAT was used against hackers in the 90s, it is routinely used to prosecute drug cases (perhaps most famously), and of course against protesters. What has changed in the last decade is that paramilitary teams can be seen simply standing by in public places; whenever I visit my family in NYC, I see paramilitary teams. Once I even saw a heavily armed SWAT team in Greenwich Village, apparently guarding a bank (or maybe the newspaper stand near it). You are right that it is disturbing, but this has been happening for a long time. The past decade's increase is part of a trend that has been occurring since I was in diapers. Sadly, most people believe that we need SWAT and that it is entirely acceptable to use paramilitary teams in this manner. There is also a shocking lack of transparency in many places, where the police need not disclose how often paramilitary teams are deployed nor why they choose to use such teams.
  - codex 13y ago
    Incidents like this one don't help, where bank robbers wore full suits of body armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout ... probably because they expected SWAT. It's a bit of an arms race, literally, between the cops and the robbers.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      That is also an exceedingly rare crime. It would have been acceptable to let the robbers get away, and then catch them later (if at all). Our cities are not war zones (thankfully). To put it another way, this is no different from saying that the police should be armed with anti-aircraft missiles, because of the 9/11 attacks.
      - cglee 13y ago
        It's rare because police can handle it now. If you let head to toe kevlar robbers get away all the time, well, you'll have a lot of those types of attacks.
- dfc 13y ago
  As far as the DoE goes I pretty sure NNSA contracts out the majority of their security positions. I think this is a somewhat recent development because I think they used to have a highly respected security force. Who would you prefer to have guarding DoE nuclear sites?
  - hga 13y ago
    That's by definition a paramilitary, but they aren't SWAT teams, e.g. their formal rules of engagement are very different. For that matter, informal, I doubt they get off on killing dogs (if you don't know about that, search on swat puppycide, Radley Balko has written a lot on it).
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  A few weeks ago, I was in Chicago, eating breakfast. I didn't realize that it was a national holiday. I came out of the diner, and turned a corner, and said "Whoah, when did a millitary parade happen?" Then, I saw the words on the side of the APC: "Chicago Police Department SWAT." To give you an idea, it looks like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHzg/vq2TdVmkJnY/s1600/State+Trooper+APC.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHz... That's Nebraska, but it was basically the same model. After the G20 came to Pittsburgh in 2009, the city used the money to purchase four of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device During the event, I had the privilege of becoming one of the first Americans to have this particular, previously military-only weapon used on me. Why would a city of 300,000 people need four of these, especially as we're closing schools and cutting bus lines? The militarization of the police force is a real problem.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    I could see how Chicago PD could use that APC/Tank vehicle, but not sure why the Nebraska highway patrol would ever need one.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Well, I for one won't be speeding on that stretch of 80 any time soon...
shaunrussell 13y ago
one must ask, why does the US have enemies?
- alan_cx 13y ago
  More over, why so many perceived enemies who are US citizens? Why is the US government treating its own citizens as enemies of the state? As a non American, I take a perverse sort of comfort from that idea that it looks like the US government is as scared of its own people as it is foreigners. At least we foreigners and American citizens are in it together. Truth is, we are enemies of US government behavior, not the United States of America or its fine people. We critical non Americans are actually arguing for America to be better, not worse. We want it stronger through fairness, justice and, well, just plain decent behavior. Not through cowardice, fear, and the bullying fist. Just imagine how powerful the US could be if the rest of the world actually liked and respected it, rather than feared it. People who fear you are not friends, they are people who will bite back the second they can. However, what I'm not sure of is whether or not the US government is actually as the majority of Americans want it. It is a democracy after all. I realize that democracy is distorted by money and vested interests, but TBH, given what we know today about all that, surely the American voter cant use that as an excuse any more. All those nasty lying attack ad campaigns, the distortion of facts, etc.... we all know how that works. So, surely Americans cant be swayed by that sort of thing? Would it not be a bit daft to know you are being manipulated, but still go along with such manipulations? So, cant people vote smart? I dunno.... Its all a bit of a mess. Oh...... why so many enemies? Fear.
  - natermer 13y ago
    > More over, why so many perceived enemies who are US citizens? Why is the US government treating its own citizens as enemies of the state? My guess is because we are told that we live in a Democracy and our vote and our taxes going to aid and abetting the people that are responsible for massive amounts of random acts of violence all over the planet.
  - hga 13y ago
    We've got an entrenched ruling class that's very distinct from the bulk of the county, who are remarkably inept, and who's interests are very much not those of the rest of the country's. This includes the Republican Party establishment, GOPe as some are starting to label it. For more details, this article is the best initial exposition I've found, "America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution", "The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary.": http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-cla... See also the expanded monograph: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW And the "revolutionary" bit, of an American nature, not at all in the violent French tradition, explains why the TEA Party et. al. has to be suppressed at all costs, and why the GOPe wasn't and still isn't interested in stopping it per se (e.g. the IRS has not changed its policies). We are existential threats to the GOPe, as e.g. Republican ex-Senator Richard Lugar knows as he's now spending more time with his family.
philliphaydon 13y ago
I wonder if we will see a non-corrupt America within our lifetime.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  If we don't work for it, no. If we do, maybe.
- hga 13y ago
  That's way too binary of a wish, there hasn't been a "non-corrupt" America pretty much ever. I mean, go back and look at the Hamilton-Burr feud, or the etymology of gerrymander: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology. The guy signed the Deceleration of Independence.... It's more a matter of degree, and pervasiveness. By many measures we're still a largely uncorrupt nation, but I find it difficult to believe that if what's happening at the top isn't stopped that it won't filter down a whole lot. Although e.g. the Japanese are an example of a largely uncorrupt people with eternally "corrupt" rulers, going back many centuries.
spitx 13y ago
This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden. "They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions" "I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good" In an increasingly uncertain world, the opinion among most American leaders and figureheads, on either side of the aisle, about the need for increased domestic and international surveillance, has already calcified. For better or worse, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The debate being precipitated here and in mainstream media is largely symbolic. It is time for privacy advocates to leave their dens and organize formally ( as in politically ) to advance their agendas. Washington only understands political clout whether it is a PAC or a lobby group. Grassroots organizations will always go the way of Occupy Wall Street without formal leadership and a political consensus - lots of Zuccotti drama and nothing to show for it except for your obligatory iconic pepper spray photo. You can mobilize politically in formal ways or bask in the warm glow of all the emotional outrage being voiced now and get your iconic photo spread. Guess what? The riots in Brazil have one too: http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/tumblr_molaxlscWT1r44q44o1_1280.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/... and nothing will come off those riots either. Wanna wager a candy bar? Let's check back 3 months from now and I bet things will have gone back to where they were without any concrete action taken and the crowds going back to their usual quotidian lives. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs
- hga 13y ago
  Clinton is the same guy who tried to press us into using key-escrowed encryption systems like the Clipper Chip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip) and his IRS was notorious for auditing anyone who committed personal, in your face lèse-majesté. You mention his wife, she of the "vast, right wing conspiracy"; these are not people who've ever been good on these subjects. For that matter, not that it wasn't largely bipartisan to begin with, but the reason the PATRIOT Act passed so quickly in such detail was it was a wish list left over from Clinton's administration, where it had been pushed without success.
crististm 13y ago
That raises the question: who is US after all? Is it the officials or is it the people?
- hga 13y ago
  If there isn't a significant change in the country's direction within the next few years, say, perhaps by the end of the decade or a little after, we'll know the answer is cemented as the former.
  - crististm 13y ago
    What I see now as US is a very different place from the one I imagined only 20 years ago. In this very short time span it went from THE place to go to in terms of Freedom to "are you nuts? - it's communist Russia in disguise". I've heard there are "no-fly" secret lists which you can't challenge because, you know, they are secret. That can't be true, right? grin
    - hga 13y ago
      You can challenge them, e.g. ask the TSA or whomever to reconsider, but you won't be told why your name was put on it ... which is not at all insane if you think about it. The existence of the list(s), and their many false positives, e.g. the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, is no secret at all, just their contents and methods.
      - crististm 13y ago
        You see the problem here? These are tactics of a police state. In a free world there is no secret police doing secret stuff that I have to jump through hoops to challenge. The moment people get used to this shit - they have won.
        hga 13y ago
        We're Americans, I assure you however much we're "used to it" there's a smoldering anger that is getting hotter and hotter as this goes on. The TEA Party et. al. are part of that, which is of course why it was imperative to suppress them. As the organs of the state continue in this ... well, it isn't going to end well.
venomsnake 13y ago
This was common in Eastern Europe and USSR during the purges - they were "Enemies with a Party Ticket". It is disturbing how easily this rhetoric comes.
- mtgx 13y ago
  While I could understand why the vast majority of the government is in favor of this, or why the mainstream media is with the government, too, however disappointing that may be, what is most saddening is that there are a lot of people out there who agree with them, too, maybe not the majority but even 40% would be a very scary number. Even in the most ruthless dictatorships there were a lot of normal people who supported their leaders, the surveillance and police states. That's the scariest part about this. If so many people believe in such ideas, it can take several decades to turn away from that, just like if you would live in a "communist" or "muslim" state, you'd know you're probably not going to see a true democracy in your country in your lifetime, even if there's a revolution. If US becomes a surveillance state and abuses are common, and people just learn to "live with that", instead of protesting [1] before it's too late, it's going to be very hard to fix that later on, and it's going to have to become a lot worse for every single person, before things even begin to change, and that will take many years. [1] - http://www.restorethefourth.net/ http://www.restorethefourth.net/
  - Sven7 13y ago
    And how do you plan to stop the next terror attack?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The normal recommendation is "good old-fashioned police work", as if strong police states are known to be beacons of freedom. Some simply recommend to just suck it up as the price of doing business, but that goes against everything America has typically done with regard to terrorism, all the way back to the Barbary Pirates: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"
      - 13y ago
aspensmonster 13y ago
>But R. Scott Oswald, a Washington attorney of the Employment Law Group, called the Obama administration “a friend to whistleblowers,” saying it draws a distinction between legitimate whistleblowers who use internal systems to complain of wrongdoing vs. leakers, who illegally make classified information public. Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Peter Van Buren, and William Binney didn't seem to think that those "internal systems" were effective. Judging by their treatment, I can't blame Edward Snowden for not deciding to become another body amongst foundations.
- hga 13y ago
  At a less dire level, look at the early Obama administration treatment of Inspectors General (IG, try https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=obama+inspector+general https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=o...), i.e. the guys who's official job it is to expose problems. We're pretty sure that's why the IRS IG didn't even do an investigation, just an "audit" (really), with unsworn testimony with people's supervisors in the same room. Anyone who makes this "a friend to whistleblowers" claim is simply not living in the same universe I am.
christkv 13y ago
reminds me off the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial in 1947. "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- thangalin 13y ago
  Part of the problem is that the people have no direct voice over the policies that shape their lives. Even Plato hinted that people will always be unsatisfied with their rulers (be they kings or democratic electorate) in writing, "People unwilling to govern themselves will be ruled by those deemed unfit to govern." Fortunately, ubiquitous computing opens up new approaches to democracy. https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/ https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger What's worse, many citizens have long since adapted that "argument", and do the dirty work for their leaders without even having to be asked, much less ordered.
- spamizbad 13y ago
  denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger This is exactly what happened after 9/11 to those who opposed conflict in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Except these people weren't even "Peacemakers" per-say: they just didn't feel military excursions were an appropriate response to a terrorist attack.
- refurb 13y ago
graycat 13y ago
I suggest that, on the question prominent in this thread, "what should the US do about terrorism and the claimed excesses of the NSA", there is now an answer that is unavoidable, rock solid, quite clear, maybe crystal clear, even if it does not address all concerns. Here in logical steps is the unavoidable answer: (1) Due to whatever in history before 1776, the US founding fathers gave us the Constitution. Soon they gave us the Bill of Rights. In particular we have the Fourth Amendment. (2) Congress, the FISA 'court', the Intelligence committees of Congress, the president, the NSA, etc. may have done this and that, but there are claims that the Constitution has been violated. (3) Law suits are being brought claiming that the Constitution has been violated. Apparently there will be suits from Google, EFF, and the ACLU, and there's little to stop more suits from being brought. It appears that quite generally lots of lawyers will be burning midnight oil, word processing, filing cases, etc. (4) Very likely some of these law suits will make it to the steps of the Supreme Court, be taken in by the court, studied, argued, and decided. If the Constitution has been violated as clearly and strongly as it is easy to guess from the recent news, then the court will likely strike down at least some of the laws that enabled the violations. Really, for this process, nothing can stop it now -- not the president, the NSA, the FISA court, Congress. People can argue this and that, that we need what the NSA has been doing or we don't, but still the Supreme Court will take this issue and address it. (5) The founding fathers made sure that the Supreme Court was not just a bunch of kids playing tag on a playground. Instead the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is about as serious as anything in this solar system. The court is absolutely, positively 100% aware of the Constitution, their role in defending it, and threats to it. Arguments of short term expediency, the threats of Boston loser wackos with backpacks with pressure cookers, Jihaders with chembio in public places, or well funded efforts to sneak a nuke into a major US city will not be seen as repealing the Bill of Rights or even one comma in the Constitution. And the SCOTUS is just awash in power, both in principle and in practice, to strike down as unconstitutional whatever parts of the Patriot Act, the FISA court, etc. they conclude, with considerable study and wisdom, is appropriate. The process of (1)-(5) has now started and will move forward "with all deliberate speed" which might be 1-2 years. In simplest terms, the SCOTUS can, yes, understand the threats of terrorism but can understand with much greater concern the threats to the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no choice but to pay essentially all their attention just to the threats to the Constitution. It's the process: The Executive branch is supposed to follow the laws and, really, can't change the laws. If the laws are too limiting for the important work of the Executive branch, then have Congress pass some new laws. We did that. If the new laws are unconstitutional, then bring suits before the SCOTUS to have the unconstitutional laws struck down. We're now in the process of doing just that. The SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and can't change it. If the Constitution needs changing, then that's 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. So, in 1-2 years we will know. The smart money is on the Constitution coming out whole. And the chances of an amendment to the Constitution are as usual from slim to none. So, where will the SCOTUS defending the Constitution leave Congress, the Executive branch, the NSA, the FBI, local police, etc.? They will have to put their thinking caps on and find ways to protect the US from the Jihaders within the Constitution. Or the Executive branch will find more ways to violate laws and/or the Constitution, and then there may be more leaks, law suits, etc. Whatever, and it may take time, in this mud wrestling the Constitution stands to come out whole. Thank you founding fathers. Did the founding fathers see this coming? Absolutely. Been there; done that; got the T-shirt, 200+ years ago. Or, we need to defend the US. One of the best parts of the US is the Constitution. So, it is logically impossible to defend the US and trash the Constitution. Instead, in defending the US, it is in particular necessary to defend the Constitution. For also defending the rest of the US, that's a problem we have to work to solve; I have no doubt at all we can solve it. In simple terms, the problem is not finding ways within the Constitution to stop the Jihaders. Instead, the problem is stopping intellectually lazy, empire building bureaucrats and CYA politicians from using the Jihader threat as an excuse to trash the Constitution, build empires, and CYA.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
D9u 13y ago
Denying the right of "We the People" to know what is being done in OUR name is anathema to the ideal of "the consent of the governed." Unfortunately there are many who believe that because of the ethnicity of the POTUS he can do no wrong. I spoke to a neighbor yesterday who is a staunch Obama supporter and he parroted the Cheney line completely. When I mentioned the Bill of Rights he justified the spying as a necessary evil. If the 4th Amendment is to be abrogated then it should be amended to reflect the current state of affairs. There goes that fabled "Moral High Ground," again... If the government was really concerned with our safety alcohol would be outlawed. Compare the statistics regarding deaths attributed to "terrorism" and deaths attributed to alcohol.
- jbm 13y ago
  Can you specifically mention what "ethnicity" the president has that prevents criticism of his behavior?
teeja 13y ago
I guess I no longer need to pretend that Obama is pretending to be an a-hole in order to get re-elected.

224 points by gagan2020 13y ago

A bit off-topic, but related: there's also a huge increase in the number of federal agencies who are outfitting their own SWAT teams. (This type of service, if really needed, could be delivered by the FBI or local law enforcement) SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations -- to reduce violence. But in the last decade or so [correction: three decades], we've seen a change in the nature of SWAT. Now the teams are being used increasingly as shock police forces, bringing an escalated level of violence to a situation in order to overwhelm any possibility of danger to the officers or general public. Seeing guys like the FDA, DOE, or EPA with their own SWAT teams is a bit unsettling, to say the least. One wonders where this will all stop.

big-jdx 13y ago
Does that tie in to the recent stories about the Feds buying so much ammo? So many indicators lately that are disturbing. *edited to add link http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billio...
- rocky1138 13y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
- kahirsch 13y ago
  The numbers that were given were contracts that allowed them to purchase up to that amount of ammunition at a given price over 5 years. The actual quantity purchased last year was more than an order of magnitude less than reported.[1] [1]http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2 http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&...
rocky1138 13y ago
Do you have a source for this?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Relevant: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-p...
- subsystem 13y ago
  http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/12/201212279357713630.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012... http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear-2913 http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tec... http://www.aclu.org/militarization http://www.aclu.org/militarization http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/growing-militarisation-police-0021931 http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/growing-militarisation-pol... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-america... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/03/occupy-militarisation-policing-protest http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/... http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/12/police-militarization-in-the-decade-following-911/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/12/police-milit... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-... http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-in... The video in the first link is probably the most interesting. Edit: Also shouldn't forget http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/
  - hga 13y ago
    Never forget Radley Balko on this topic, and he's got a new book out, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610392116/ http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americ...) as well as an old, hard/$$$ to find one, *Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America (http://www.amazon.com/Overkill-Paramilitary-Police-Raids-America/dp/B0034ANHS0/ http://www.amazon.com/Overkill-Paramilitary-Police-Raids-Ame...). Makes for very depressing reading.
betterunix 13y ago
"SWAT teams traditionally have been there to diffuse potentially violent confrontations" Your news is about 30 years out of date. Since the late 80s, there has been a massive increase in the use of paramilitary police teams to serve basic search-and-arrest warrants. SWAT was used against hackers in the 90s, it is routinely used to prosecute drug cases (perhaps most famously), and of course against protesters. What has changed in the last decade is that paramilitary teams can be seen simply standing by in public places; whenever I visit my family in NYC, I see paramilitary teams. Once I even saw a heavily armed SWAT team in Greenwich Village, apparently guarding a bank (or maybe the newspaper stand near it). You are right that it is disturbing, but this has been happening for a long time. The past decade's increase is part of a trend that has been occurring since I was in diapers. Sadly, most people believe that we need SWAT and that it is entirely acceptable to use paramilitary teams in this manner. There is also a shocking lack of transparency in many places, where the police need not disclose how often paramilitary teams are deployed nor why they choose to use such teams.
- codex 13y ago
  Incidents like this one don't help, where bank robbers wore full suits of body armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout ... probably because they expected SWAT. It's a bit of an arms race, literally, between the cops and the robbers.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    That is also an exceedingly rare crime. It would have been acceptable to let the robbers get away, and then catch them later (if at all). Our cities are not war zones (thankfully). To put it another way, this is no different from saying that the police should be armed with anti-aircraft missiles, because of the 9/11 attacks.
    - cglee 13y ago
      It's rare because police can handle it now. If you let head to toe kevlar robbers get away all the time, well, you'll have a lot of those types of attacks.
dfc 13y ago
As far as the DoE goes I pretty sure NNSA contracts out the majority of their security positions. I think this is a somewhat recent development because I think they used to have a highly respected security force. Who would you prefer to have guarding DoE nuclear sites?
- hga 13y ago
  That's by definition a paramilitary, but they aren't SWAT teams, e.g. their formal rules of engagement are very different. For that matter, informal, I doubt they get off on killing dogs (if you don't know about that, search on swat puppycide, Radley Balko has written a lot on it).
steveklabnik 13y ago
A few weeks ago, I was in Chicago, eating breakfast. I didn't realize that it was a national holiday. I came out of the diner, and turned a corner, and said "Whoah, when did a millitary parade happen?" Then, I saw the words on the side of the APC: "Chicago Police Department SWAT." To give you an idea, it looks like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHzg/vq2TdVmkJnY/s1600/State+Trooper+APC.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kHTFUq0_Yec/T-s2AzxBmQI/AAAAAAAAHz... That's Nebraska, but it was basically the same model. After the G20 came to Pittsburgh in 2009, the city used the money to purchase four of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device During the event, I had the privilege of becoming one of the first Americans to have this particular, previously military-only weapon used on me. Why would a city of 300,000 people need four of these, especially as we're closing schools and cutting bus lines? The militarization of the police force is a real problem.
- rdouble 13y ago
  I could see how Chicago PD could use that APC/Tank vehicle, but not sure why the Nebraska highway patrol would ever need one.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Well, I for one won't be speeding on that stretch of 80 any time soon...

shaunrussell 13y ago

one must ask, why does the US have enemies?

alan_cx 13y ago
More over, why so many perceived enemies who are US citizens? Why is the US government treating its own citizens as enemies of the state? As a non American, I take a perverse sort of comfort from that idea that it looks like the US government is as scared of its own people as it is foreigners. At least we foreigners and American citizens are in it together. Truth is, we are enemies of US government behavior, not the United States of America or its fine people. We critical non Americans are actually arguing for America to be better, not worse. We want it stronger through fairness, justice and, well, just plain decent behavior. Not through cowardice, fear, and the bullying fist. Just imagine how powerful the US could be if the rest of the world actually liked and respected it, rather than feared it. People who fear you are not friends, they are people who will bite back the second they can. However, what I'm not sure of is whether or not the US government is actually as the majority of Americans want it. It is a democracy after all. I realize that democracy is distorted by money and vested interests, but TBH, given what we know today about all that, surely the American voter cant use that as an excuse any more. All those nasty lying attack ad campaigns, the distortion of facts, etc.... we all know how that works. So, surely Americans cant be swayed by that sort of thing? Would it not be a bit daft to know you are being manipulated, but still go along with such manipulations? So, cant people vote smart? I dunno.... Its all a bit of a mess. Oh...... why so many enemies? Fear.
- natermer 13y ago
  > More over, why so many perceived enemies who are US citizens? Why is the US government treating its own citizens as enemies of the state? My guess is because we are told that we live in a Democracy and our vote and our taxes going to aid and abetting the people that are responsible for massive amounts of random acts of violence all over the planet.
- hga 13y ago
  We've got an entrenched ruling class that's very distinct from the bulk of the county, who are remarkably inept, and who's interests are very much not those of the rest of the country's. This includes the Republican Party establishment, GOPe as some are starting to label it. For more details, this article is the best initial exposition I've found, "America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution", "The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary.": http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-cla... See also the expanded monograph: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Class-ebook/dp/B0040JHNZW And the "revolutionary" bit, of an American nature, not at all in the violent French tradition, explains why the TEA Party et. al. has to be suppressed at all costs, and why the GOPe wasn't and still isn't interested in stopping it per se (e.g. the IRS has not changed its policies). We are existential threats to the GOPe, as e.g. Republican ex-Senator Richard Lugar knows as he's now spending more time with his family.

philliphaydon 13y ago

I wonder if we will see a non-corrupt America within our lifetime.

dllthomas 13y ago
If we don't work for it, no. If we do, maybe.
hga 13y ago
That's way too binary of a wish, there hasn't been a "non-corrupt" America pretty much ever. I mean, go back and look at the Hamilton-Burr feud, or the etymology of gerrymander: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology. The guy signed the Deceleration of Independence.... It's more a matter of degree, and pervasiveness. By many measures we're still a largely uncorrupt nation, but I find it difficult to believe that if what's happening at the top isn't stopped that it won't filter down a whole lot. Although e.g. the Japanese are an example of a largely uncorrupt people with eternally "corrupt" rulers, going back many centuries.

spitx 13y ago

This is Bill Clinton speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative - whose spouse, from all accounts, will most likely be running for the office of President in 2016 - on NSA Security Leaks and Snowden. "They (NSA) have prevented a very large number of harmful actions" "I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good" In an increasingly uncertain world, the opinion among most American leaders and figureheads, on either side of the aisle, about the need for increased domestic and international surveillance, has already calcified. For better or worse, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The debate being precipitated here and in mainstream media is largely symbolic. It is time for privacy advocates to leave their dens and organize formally ( as in politically ) to advance their agendas. Washington only understands political clout whether it is a PAC or a lobby group. Grassroots organizations will always go the way of Occupy Wall Street without formal leadership and a political consensus - lots of Zuccotti drama and nothing to show for it except for your obligatory iconic pepper spray photo. You can mobilize politically in formal ways or bask in the warm glow of all the emotional outrage being voiced now and get your iconic photo spread. Guess what? The riots in Brazil have one too: http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/tumblr_molaxlscWT1r44q44o1_1280.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/a3b0bc19184f467fb7a70a2df6ee81a5/... and nothing will come off those riots either. Wanna wager a candy bar? Let's check back 3 months from now and I bet things will have gone back to where they were without any concrete action taken and the crowds going back to their usual quotidian lives. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-JdjIxjeUs

hga 13y ago
Clinton is the same guy who tried to press us into using key-escrowed encryption systems like the Clipper Chip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip) and his IRS was notorious for auditing anyone who committed personal, in your face lèse-majesté. You mention his wife, she of the "vast, right wing conspiracy"; these are not people who've ever been good on these subjects. For that matter, not that it wasn't largely bipartisan to begin with, but the reason the PATRIOT Act passed so quickly in such detail was it was a wish list left over from Clinton's administration, where it had been pushed without success.

crististm 13y ago

That raises the question: who is US after all? Is it the officials or is it the people?

hga 13y ago
If there isn't a significant change in the country's direction within the next few years, say, perhaps by the end of the decade or a little after, we'll know the answer is cemented as the former.
- crististm 13y ago
  What I see now as US is a very different place from the one I imagined only 20 years ago. In this very short time span it went from THE place to go to in terms of Freedom to "are you nuts? - it's communist Russia in disguise". I've heard there are "no-fly" secret lists which you can't challenge because, you know, they are secret. That can't be true, right? grin
  - hga 13y ago
    You can challenge them, e.g. ask the TSA or whomever to reconsider, but you won't be told why your name was put on it ... which is not at all insane if you think about it. The existence of the list(s), and their many false positives, e.g. the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, is no secret at all, just their contents and methods.
    - crististm 13y ago
      You see the problem here? These are tactics of a police state. In a free world there is no secret police doing secret stuff that I have to jump through hoops to challenge. The moment people get used to this shit - they have won.
      - hga 13y ago
        We're Americans, I assure you however much we're "used to it" there's a smoldering anger that is getting hotter and hotter as this goes on. The TEA Party et. al. are part of that, which is of course why it was imperative to suppress them. As the organs of the state continue in this ... well, it isn't going to end well.

venomsnake 13y ago

This was common in Eastern Europe and USSR during the purges - they were "Enemies with a Party Ticket". It is disturbing how easily this rhetoric comes.

mtgx 13y ago
While I could understand why the vast majority of the government is in favor of this, or why the mainstream media is with the government, too, however disappointing that may be, what is most saddening is that there are a lot of people out there who agree with them, too, maybe not the majority but even 40% would be a very scary number. Even in the most ruthless dictatorships there were a lot of normal people who supported their leaders, the surveillance and police states. That's the scariest part about this. If so many people believe in such ideas, it can take several decades to turn away from that, just like if you would live in a "communist" or "muslim" state, you'd know you're probably not going to see a true democracy in your country in your lifetime, even if there's a revolution. If US becomes a surveillance state and abuses are common, and people just learn to "live with that", instead of protesting [1] before it's too late, it's going to be very hard to fix that later on, and it's going to have to become a lot worse for every single person, before things even begin to change, and that will take many years. [1] - http://www.restorethefourth.net/ http://www.restorethefourth.net/
- Sven7 13y ago
  And how do you plan to stop the next terror attack?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The normal recommendation is "good old-fashioned police work", as if strong police states are known to be beacons of freedom. Some simply recommend to just suck it up as the price of doing business, but that goes against everything America has typically done with regard to terrorism, all the way back to the Barbary Pirates: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"
    - 13y ago

aspensmonster 13y ago

>But R. Scott Oswald, a Washington attorney of the Employment Law Group, called the Obama administration “a friend to whistleblowers,” saying it draws a distinction between legitimate whistleblowers who use internal systems to complain of wrongdoing vs. leakers, who illegally make classified information public. Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Peter Van Buren, and William Binney didn't seem to think that those "internal systems" were effective. Judging by their treatment, I can't blame Edward Snowden for not deciding to become another body amongst foundations.

hga 13y ago
At a less dire level, look at the early Obama administration treatment of Inspectors General (IG, try https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=obama+inspector+general https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+inspector+general&oq=o...), i.e. the guys who's official job it is to expose problems. We're pretty sure that's why the IRS IG didn't even do an investigation, just an "audit" (really), with unsworn testimony with people's supervisors in the same room. Anyone who makes this "a friend to whistleblowers" claim is simply not living in the same universe I am.

christkv 13y ago

reminds me off the Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg trial in 1947. "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

thangalin 13y ago
Part of the problem is that the people have no direct voice over the policies that shape their lives. Even Plato hinted that people will always be unsatisfied with their rulers (be they kings or democratic electorate) in writing, "People unwilling to govern themselves will be ruled by those deemed unfit to govern." Fortunately, ubiquitous computing opens up new approaches to democracy. https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/ https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/
PavlovsCat 13y ago
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger What's worse, many citizens have long since adapted that "argument", and do the dirty work for their leaders without even having to be asked, much less ordered.
spamizbad 13y ago
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger This is exactly what happened after 9/11 to those who opposed conflict in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Except these people weren't even "Peacemakers" per-say: they just didn't feel military excursions were an appropriate response to a terrorist attack.
refurb 13y ago

graycat 13y ago

I suggest that, on the question prominent in this thread, "what should the US do about terrorism and the claimed excesses of the NSA", there is now an answer that is unavoidable, rock solid, quite clear, maybe crystal clear, even if it does not address all concerns. Here in logical steps is the unavoidable answer: (1) Due to whatever in history before 1776, the US founding fathers gave us the Constitution. Soon they gave us the Bill of Rights. In particular we have the Fourth Amendment. (2) Congress, the FISA 'court', the Intelligence committees of Congress, the president, the NSA, etc. may have done this and that, but there are claims that the Constitution has been violated. (3) Law suits are being brought claiming that the Constitution has been violated. Apparently there will be suits from Google, EFF, and the ACLU, and there's little to stop more suits from being brought. It appears that quite generally lots of lawyers will be burning midnight oil, word processing, filing cases, etc. (4) Very likely some of these law suits will make it to the steps of the Supreme Court, be taken in by the court, studied, argued, and decided. If the Constitution has been violated as clearly and strongly as it is easy to guess from the recent news, then the court will likely strike down at least some of the laws that enabled the violations. Really, for this process, nothing can stop it now -- not the president, the NSA, the FISA court, Congress. People can argue this and that, that we need what the NSA has been doing or we don't, but still the Supreme Court will take this issue and address it. (5) The founding fathers made sure that the Supreme Court was not just a bunch of kids playing tag on a playground. Instead the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is about as serious as anything in this solar system. The court is absolutely, positively 100% aware of the Constitution, their role in defending it, and threats to it. Arguments of short term expediency, the threats of Boston loser wackos with backpacks with pressure cookers, Jihaders with chembio in public places, or well funded efforts to sneak a nuke into a major US city will not be seen as repealing the Bill of Rights or even one comma in the Constitution. And the SCOTUS is just awash in power, both in principle and in practice, to strike down as unconstitutional whatever parts of the Patriot Act, the FISA court, etc. they conclude, with considerable study and wisdom, is appropriate. The process of (1)-(5) has now started and will move forward "with all deliberate speed" which might be 1-2 years. In simplest terms, the SCOTUS can, yes, understand the threats of terrorism but can understand with much greater concern the threats to the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no choice but to pay essentially all their attention just to the threats to the Constitution. It's the process: The Executive branch is supposed to follow the laws and, really, can't change the laws. If the laws are too limiting for the important work of the Executive branch, then have Congress pass some new laws. We did that. If the new laws are unconstitutional, then bring suits before the SCOTUS to have the unconstitutional laws struck down. We're now in the process of doing just that. The SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and can't change it. If the Constitution needs changing, then that's 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. So, in 1-2 years we will know. The smart money is on the Constitution coming out whole. And the chances of an amendment to the Constitution are as usual from slim to none. So, where will the SCOTUS defending the Constitution leave Congress, the Executive branch, the NSA, the FBI, local police, etc.? They will have to put their thinking caps on and find ways to protect the US from the Jihaders within the Constitution. Or the Executive branch will find more ways to violate laws and/or the Constitution, and then there may be more leaks, law suits, etc. Whatever, and it may take time, in this mud wrestling the Constitution stands to come out whole. Thank you founding fathers. Did the founding fathers see this coming? Absolutely. Been there; done that; got the T-shirt, 200+ years ago. Or, we need to defend the US. One of the best parts of the US is the Constitution. So, it is logically impossible to defend the US and trash the Constitution. Instead, in defending the US, it is in particular necessary to defend the Constitution. For also defending the rest of the US, that's a problem we have to work to solve; I have no doubt at all we can solve it. In simple terms, the problem is not finding ways within the Constitution to stop the Jihaders. Instead, the problem is stopping intellectually lazy, empire building bureaucrats and CYA politicians from using the Jihader threat as an excuse to trash the Constitution, build empires, and CYA.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

D9u 13y ago

Denying the right of "We the People" to know what is being done in OUR name is anathema to the ideal of "the consent of the governed." Unfortunately there are many who believe that because of the ethnicity of the POTUS he can do no wrong. I spoke to a neighbor yesterday who is a staunch Obama supporter and he parroted the Cheney line completely. When I mentioned the Bill of Rights he justified the spying as a necessary evil. If the 4th Amendment is to be abrogated then it should be amended to reflect the current state of affairs. There goes that fabled "Moral High Ground," again... If the government was really concerned with our safety alcohol would be outlawed. Compare the statistics regarding deaths attributed to "terrorism" and deaths attributed to alcohol.

jbm 13y ago
Can you specifically mention what "ethnicity" the president has that prevents criticism of his behavior?

teeja 13y ago

I guess I no longer need to pretend that Obama is pretending to be an a-hole in order to get re-elected.