Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Rand Paul: No, the feds shouldn’t give war machines to the police

  1. #1

    Default Rand Paul: No, the feds shouldn’t give war machines to the police

    Posted last night at the New York Post.
    http://nypost.com/2017/08/28/no-the-...to-the-police/

    update: article is on Drudge now - RAND: Line between police, military being blurred...

    No, the feds shouldn’t give war machines to the police
    By Rand Paul
    August 28, 2017 | 7:42pm |

    Speaking to the Fraternal Order of Police in Tennessee this morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally announced that the Trump administration will restart giving surplus military weapons and equipment to state and local law enforcement.

    That’s a mistake.

    What kind of equipment are we talking about? Well, Haverhill, Mass., a town of fewer than 65,000, got a nearly 20-ton Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Keene, N.H., a town of fewer than 30,000, got an 8-ton armored BearCat. Over 10,000 bayonets have been handed out. Yes, bayonets.

    Police work is unquestionably difficult — and often thankless. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for those who put it all on the line to protect our communities, and I saw their bravery firsthand this summer when Capitol Police officers made all the difference during the attack on our congressional baseball-game practice.

    To support our local police, we must first realize they aren’t soldiers. But today the line between the two is being eroded.

    It’s no surprise you can find big government right at the heart of this problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies — where police departments compete to acquire military gear.

    Plus, over a third of the “surplus” equipment is new, so it’s disingenuous to portray it as banged-up old stuff lying around the garage.

    When we couple militarizing law enforcement with the erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury — national-security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction asset forfeiture — we see the magnitude of the problem.

    National Review’s John Fund has observed: “The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of nonviolent civil or administrative violations.”

    Fund also notes: “By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team,” and that “the number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year [in 2014].”

    Given these developments, it’s natural for many Americans — especially minorities, given the racial disparities in policing — to feel like their government is targeting them. Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice isn’t paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for nonviolent mistakes in their youth.

    Our Justice Department should be leading the conversation on reforming the system, not setting it back further.

    Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an elusive and dangerous — or false — security. The militarization of our law enforcement is just another symptom of an overall problem that stems from an unprecedented expansion of government power — where we are repeatedly asked to make such “liberty for what we tell you is security” tradeoffs.

    Ultimately, if we sacrifice the very nature of the institutions we have set up to enforce the law, what kind of law will we end up enforcing?

    When Congress returns, I will reintroduce my Stop Militarizing Our Law Enforcement Act, which will address this issue by prohibiting the federal transfer of militarized equipment to state and local law enforcement, including MRAP vehicles, drones and armored vehicles transferred through the Department of Defense’s 1033, Department of Justice’s Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and Department of Homeland Security’s grant programs.

    This prohibition only applies to offensive equipment and not defensive equipment, such as body armor. It’ll increase these programs’ transparency and accountability and also help us find out how federal agencies are using military-style training and equipment.


    I have been encouraged by how much progress we have made under President Trump to roll back overzealous government and get unnecessary regulation off the American people’s backs. In cutting onerous regulations, the president has made clear he is listening to the American people.

    I urge President Trump and Attorney General Sessions to listen to the concerns Americans have raised regarding police militarization and reconsider their decision.

    Rand Paul, a Republican, is a US senator from Kentucky.

    http://nypost.com/2017/08/28/no-the-...-to-the-police
    Last edited by Valli6; 08-29-2017 at 02:08 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    OK, so Trump finally $#@!s up in a big way.

    Oy.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.


    Be a warrior abhorrent of war, willing to wage it in the face of trespass.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    Posted last night at the New York Post.
    http://nypost.com/2017/08/28/no-the-...to-the-police/

    update: article is on Drudge now - RAND: Line between police, military being blurred...
    Glad Sen. Paul has taken this position. Cops are civilians too. I should get the same protections as they do and vice versa. They get their MRAP and I get my M5 and functional carriage that I can pull around with my pick-up. If they want it any other way they can sh*tcan their unions and make themselves subject to the UCMJ - double jeopardy and all. Like that will ever happen. /sarc

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance






Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul: We shouldn't give an inch on foreign policy issues
    By Brett85 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 02-03-2013, 08:59 PM
  2. Feds to start deploying wallet scanning machines at border entry points.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 03:35 PM
  3. Why you shouldn't give money to RNC or DNC
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2010, 09:08 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 12:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •