4 ms·

Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. State surveillance is officially motivated by terrorism, with the drug

by tedks 12y ago

Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. State surveillance is officially motivated by terrorism, with the drug war only an ancillary motivation. The war on terrorism can never be won and can never even be stopped, because terrorism can only be suppressed, not eliminated. So I don't think there's a compelling argument to be made that the end of the drug war will cause an end to surveillance. Militarized police are currently primarily justified because of the drug war, but there's always terrorism to fall back on in the even that the drug war liberalizes. And if the populace is on drugs, who's going to speak out against militarized police? Or against anything else for that matter?

jobposter1234 12y ago
> Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. Needs some evidence for a claim this strong. Yes, the DoD sold excess hardcore equipment to police forces. This still required money to buy them, in my understanding, even at reduced prices. And police departments are responsible for the costs of most of their equipment. Think hand guns, batons, etc. I'm willing to listen to your perspective if you can put together a cogent, evidence-supported argument. As it stands, you're alluding to things that may or may not be the case, with little evidence, and hinting at some sort of a conspiracy without actual logic, other than some predilections for suspicion of authority.
- lkbm 12y ago
  Under the 1033 program, it's given to police forces free of charge: "By providing law enforcement agencies with surplus military equipment free of charge, the NDAA encourages police to employ military weapons and military tactics." -- http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033-program-264537 http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033... '[The 1033 Program] "permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without charge, excess U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) personal property (supplies and equipment) to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs),"' -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/the-pentagon-gave-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-of-military-gear-to-local-law-enforcement-last-year/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/t... Caveat: "given" may be the wrong term: 'Estevez said that such equipment is "conditionally loaned" to the local police departments and is returned to the Department of Defense for "demilitarization at the end of its useful life."' -- http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/10/official-most-dod-equipment-given-to-police-not-military.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/10/official-most-... It's also definitely worth noting that the majority of items aren't tanks, though: "Requisitions cover the gamut of items used by America’s military -- clothing and office supplies, tools and rescue equipment, vehicles, rifles and others small arms. Of all the excess equipment provided through the 1033 program, only five percent are weapons and less than one percent are tactical vehicles." -- http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/Pages/default.aspx http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/Pages/default.as... (Though if that <1% is in terms of number of items rather percent of total value, that may still be a misleadingly small percentage.)
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    Nationwide, how big was this program compared to the size of a police force's asset budget?
    - tedks 12y ago
      If you demand any information that opposes your existing opinions to be spoon-fed to you, but blindly accept things that you agree with, you're just covering your ears in a different sort of way rather than being truly open-minded. I've found this information in two google searches and integrating information from three results available on the first page of results. Google filter-bubbles, so your results might be different. But probably not impossible. Notice also that you were factually wrong about whether or not this equipment was free. Are you going to go through your mind, search for all the conclusions you made based on that incorrect assumption, and propagate that belief? Or are you going to squelch it with an excuse? Don't hide behind the rhetoric of rational thought by requesting "strong evidence for strong claims" when you're disagreed with. It outs you as a hypocrite.
lkbm 12y ago
> And if the populace is on drugs, who's going to speak out against militarized police? Or against anything else for that matter? Living with a bunch of college students, I can promise you that activism and drug use are far from mutually exclusive.
- soylentcola 12y ago
  Not to mention the fact that the populace has been ingesting intoxicants pretty steadily up until now as well. The only difference is that it's mostly been alcohol. The idea that you can be jailed for unhealthy behavior (when it doesn't affect other people) is relatively new I think. If anything, I feel like liberalizing drug policy would be more of a correction than a radical departure from history. For as long as I'm aware, some portion of the population will desire recreational drugs, whether that's alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, or whatever. A smaller subset will run into issues with their use (whether that's for physiological reasons like genetic disposition or because of life circumstances that make intoxication seem like a more appealing escape). That won't really change if you can no longer be put in jail for ingesting something. I'd imagine it would be a lot like it is now. A good chunk of the population would continue to chemically alter their moods and mental processes on occasion and a smaller subset of them would run into dependence or other health issues. The difference would be that people wouldn't be at risk of prison or permanent financial ruin because they did something that is (at worst) unhealthy or unwise. Intoxication would and should remain no excuse for otherwise criminal acts committed while under the influence. You're still responsible for your actions, you just wouldn't automatically become a criminal because you adjusted the way your brain works for a few hours one afternoon.
- tedks 12y ago
  I used to be very involved in a number of activist groups, and I think the drug culture was significantly harmful to their effectiveness. Activism itself is not a threat to the status quo. Successful activism is.

by tedks 12y ago

jobposter1234 12y ago

> Most police departments don't pay for their weapons systems, they're gifts from the DoD. Needs some evidence for a claim this strong. Yes, the DoD sold excess hardcore equipment to police forces. This still required money to buy them, in my understanding, even at reduced prices. And police departments are responsible for the costs of most of their equipment. Think hand guns, batons, etc. I'm willing to listen to your perspective if you can put together a cogent, evidence-supported argument. As it stands, you're alluding to things that may or may not be the case, with little evidence, and hinting at some sort of a conspiracy without actual logic, other than some predilections for suspicion of authority.

lkbm 12y ago
Under the 1033 program, it's given to police forces free of charge: "By providing law enforcement agencies with surplus military equipment free of charge, the NDAA encourages police to employ military weapons and military tactics." -- http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033-program-264537 http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033... '[The 1033 Program] "permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without charge, excess U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) personal property (supplies and equipment) to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs),"' -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/the-pentagon-gave-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-of-military-gear-to-local-law-enforcement-last-year/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/t... Caveat: "given" may be the wrong term: 'Estevez said that such equipment is "conditionally loaned" to the local police departments and is returned to the Department of Defense for "demilitarization at the end of its useful life."' -- http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/10/official-most-dod-equipment-given-to-police-not-military.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/10/official-most-... It's also definitely worth noting that the majority of items aren't tanks, though: "Requisitions cover the gamut of items used by America’s military -- clothing and office supplies, tools and rescue equipment, vehicles, rifles and others small arms. Of all the excess equipment provided through the 1033 program, only five percent are weapons and less than one percent are tactical vehicles." -- http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/Pages/default.aspx http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/Pages/default.as... (Though if that <1% is in terms of number of items rather percent of total value, that may still be a misleadingly small percentage.)
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  Nationwide, how big was this program compared to the size of a police force's asset budget?
  - tedks 12y ago
    If you demand any information that opposes your existing opinions to be spoon-fed to you, but blindly accept things that you agree with, you're just covering your ears in a different sort of way rather than being truly open-minded. I've found this information in two google searches and integrating information from three results available on the first page of results. Google filter-bubbles, so your results might be different. But probably not impossible. Notice also that you were factually wrong about whether or not this equipment was free. Are you going to go through your mind, search for all the conclusions you made based on that incorrect assumption, and propagate that belief? Or are you going to squelch it with an excuse? Don't hide behind the rhetoric of rational thought by requesting "strong evidence for strong claims" when you're disagreed with. It outs you as a hypocrite.

lkbm 12y ago

> And if the populace is on drugs, who's going to speak out against militarized police? Or against anything else for that matter? Living with a bunch of college students, I can promise you that activism and drug use are far from mutually exclusive.

soylentcola 12y ago
Not to mention the fact that the populace has been ingesting intoxicants pretty steadily up until now as well. The only difference is that it's mostly been alcohol. The idea that you can be jailed for unhealthy behavior (when it doesn't affect other people) is relatively new I think. If anything, I feel like liberalizing drug policy would be more of a correction than a radical departure from history. For as long as I'm aware, some portion of the population will desire recreational drugs, whether that's alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, or whatever. A smaller subset will run into issues with their use (whether that's for physiological reasons like genetic disposition or because of life circumstances that make intoxication seem like a more appealing escape). That won't really change if you can no longer be put in jail for ingesting something. I'd imagine it would be a lot like it is now. A good chunk of the population would continue to chemically alter their moods and mental processes on occasion and a smaller subset of them would run into dependence or other health issues. The difference would be that people wouldn't be at risk of prison or permanent financial ruin because they did something that is (at worst) unhealthy or unwise. Intoxication would and should remain no excuse for otherwise criminal acts committed while under the influence. You're still responsible for your actions, you just wouldn't automatically become a criminal because you adjusted the way your brain works for a few hours one afternoon.
tedks 12y ago
I used to be very involved in a number of activist groups, and I think the drug culture was significantly harmful to their effectiveness. Activism itself is not a threat to the status quo. Successful activism is.