The Rise of the American Police State
Timothy Birdnow
Howard Rich of Americans for Limited Government discusses the rise of the police state in America, and how it coincides with increasing cases of police brutality.
http://netrightdaily.com/2011/06/police-state-brutality-on-the-rise/
From the article:
"Part of the problem is obviously the vast expansion of the police state in America. According to Americans for SWAT Reform, more than 50,000 raids take place annually in the United States. Thirty years ago, there were less than 3,000 raids a year.
Another contributing factor is the steady militarization of local law enforcement.
“The war on drugs has done incalculable damage to the character of law enforcement by encouraging police officers to forget they are civilians,” writes David Rittgers, a legal analyst at the Cato Institute who served three tours in Afghanistan.
“When police officers refer to their fellow citizens as civilians and mean to exclude themselves from that category, they’ve mentally leapt from enforcing the law to destroying the enemies of the state,” Rittgers continued. “That’s incompatible with a free society.”
Also, the definition of what constitutes a “SWAT-worthy” offense has broadened considerably – as multiple federal agencies now reserve the right to knock down your door for virtually any reason.
For example, earlier this week a SWAT team raided a home in California – roughing up a man whose estranged wife had failed to pay back her student loans. What agency issued the warrant for this raid? The U.S. Department of Education – which recently purchased more than two dozen 12-gauge shotguns to help prevent “waste, fraud, abuse and other criminal activity involving federal education funds, programs and operations.”'
End excerpt.
He's right; there has been an increased paramilitarization of the civilian police, with a culture forming an "us v. them" mentality. The beat cop is gone, replaced by the cruiser. Police used to be encouraged to get to know the locals on their beat; not anymore. Now police are purposely shifted around to DISCOURAGE forming bonds with the community, ostensibly to avoid favoritism. This is a gift of the 1960's; the police were "the Man" and it was thought that they were too personally involved. Now the police are supposed to act as interchangeable automatons, clones in blue with no personality save that of officer. They have been asked to do too much, too; fight narcotics, fight terrorists, act as social workers, truant officers, etc. Much of their duties lie outside of their traditional purview. They have little choice but to view all civilians as a threat.
Bear in mind; I am not badmouthing our brave police officers, many who are outstanding people. But, as in all trades, there are good guys and there are bad guys, and I fear that the direction we are taking in this society the bad guys are rising to the top, a sort of soured cream poured into coffee. With too many laws to enforce the bad guys can do as they please.
Years ago a police officer admitted to me that he didn't need a reason to stop anyone; he could find some violation after the fact. His point was that it is impossible to obey every law; there are too many. That has created the "routine traffic stop", a phrase we bandy about but should look upon with horror; there should be no such imposition of the authority of the State for frivolous reasons. This has contributed to a loss of respect for the law in general, and of the police in particular. The cops know they aren't respected as a result, and it turns them against the public. I am NOT saying that the majority of police abuse their authority, or that they let personal pique drive their actions, but I am saying that human nature is human nature and if you are disliked and disrespected you are likely to dislike and disrespect back. It's not their fault; it's the fault of the militarization of the police, and the multiplying of laws to intervene in everyday life. Since the law has become so enormous and complex, everyone violates it as some point. We have defined ourselves as criminals by virtue of ignorance.
Again, I am NOT criticising the police; they are doing what they are told to do, told by Progressive politicians who want law to reach it's hand into everyday life. These guys are enforcing intrusive laws.
Case in point; I went to my cabin in southern Missouri (the fabled Ozark Hilton) over Memorial Day, and on my way home in the morning was quite tired, having been kept up with an upset stomach the night before. My car was driving funny; it was a bit hard to control (I would have a tire blow just a couple of days later) and a state trooper hit his flashers. I stopped, perplexed; I had been going well under the speed limit. The trooper began quizzing me on when was the last time I had a drink, and wanted to know where I was from, where I was going, etc. Because he had seen a slight wobble ONE TIME he pulled me over, hoping to arrest me for drunk driving. He had to let me go, but the point was that he had no reason to suspect anything except that my car veered a slight bit on a curvy highway. He left me and immediately turned on his lights, nailing a car that had just passed.
I don't blame the officer who was doing what they told him to do. I understand the necessity to protect drivers on the road from drunks. I get all that. But this was entirely too intrusive. He could see, even smell, that I hadn't been drinking. He had no business knowing who I was, where I was going, what I was doing; it's not his business. He ran a quick check on my licence. Why? Yes, I could turn out to be an ax-murderer, or a guy with ties to Al-Qaeda, but so could anybody. We purposely devised our system to avoid this sort of thing. America is supposed to be free; we have chosen to empower the state to make it secure. As Franklin pointed out, those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.
This instance at least involved the safety of others. What of laws designed to make us safe from ourselves? Seat belt laws, for example. Motor cycle helmet laws? Bans on distilling your own liquor? We have more and more of these all the time. The FDA bans people from buying any unpasteurized milk, whether the potential purchaser is willing to forswear the risks or not. They raided a natural dairy with guns drawn a while back, arresting the workers and hauling them to jail. Is that a free society?
Many states have made vaccinations for Human Papilloma Virus mandatory for young girls, whether the parents like it or not. HPV is only transmitted through sexual activity. It's entirely preventable, yet the government is now forcing people to subject their children to it, and many states are requiring "counseling" when these children are given the shots, exposing them to sexual knowledge their parents may not want them acquiring. Is this freedom?
Freedom is inherently risky. A society that seeks nothing but safety can never be free. We have been creating a despotism under the guise of Progressive paternalism. America is too stupid to judge her own security and needs, and so the State must tell Americans what they must do. And that has to be enforced, which means the threat of physical violence. Had I refused to cooperate with that state trooper on the road home from the Ozark Hilton I would ultimately have been shot, or beaten with a billy club. I was violating no law. But our elites have decided that their will be done, and their will is done or else! As I said, I don't blame the cop - I blame the busybodies, the doo-gooders, and most especially the collectivists who want us all to meld together into a kind of Star-Trekkian Borg.
Benito Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" for Fascist theory. It was not a pejorative. It meant a society intimately involved in the individual, with the individual intimately involved in society. The State concerns itself with all aspects of life in the Mussolinian model. This idea did not die with Mussolini; it stalks the halls of Academia, it slithers in the statehouses, it whispers in the newsrooms and public schools. Fascism is modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is totalitarian in nature, and far too many Americans think that is as it should be. They do not understand that every time they stick their noses into their neighbor's business that they have become vile despots. "There should be a law" is the cry of the fascist and tyrant.
And one could argue that we are more fascistic than the regime of Mussolini ever was; with superior technology we can dominate in ways no fascist would have dreamed. Red light cameras, speeding cameras, radar, satellite surveillance, computerized checking machines in stores, etc. If someone were to bother,they could see the Ozark Hilton, perhaps with me outside going to the bathroom, even though it is deep in the woods. That is a power that Hitler and Stalin could only dream about! Computers make it possible to trace the every movement of the individual.
Wyatt Earp was a petty criminal and a pimp in his youth; he jumped bail for horse thievery in Arkansas (a hanging offense) and went on to become one of the west's most famous lawmen. It couldn't happen today; Earps name would be on file in the computer database, and he would be banned as a felon from any sort of law enforcement. Maybe he wouldn't have hanged for stealing horses, but he would have been caught by someone and would be nothing but another criminal. Today there are no second chances, because we have built an electronic spider web. Our totalitarian system, our sticking our noses into everybody's business all of the time, would make that impossible.
And it's not just criminal records; how many conservatives in Academia fail to get tenure because of Google searches? How often does one's political viewpoint end up putting the person on a blacklist? I know it happens in academia, and doubtlessly in government.
At any rate, our efforts to build a paradise has been building instead a prison. The blaze of freedom is but a dim candle, seen mistily through the fog, flickering in the breeze. We are on the verge of letting it die.
Shame on us!
Howard Rich of Americans for Limited Government discusses the rise of the police state in America, and how it coincides with increasing cases of police brutality.
http://netrightdaily.com/2011/06/police-state-brutality-on-the-rise/
From the article:
"Part of the problem is obviously the vast expansion of the police state in America. According to Americans for SWAT Reform, more than 50,000 raids take place annually in the United States. Thirty years ago, there were less than 3,000 raids a year.
Another contributing factor is the steady militarization of local law enforcement.
“The war on drugs has done incalculable damage to the character of law enforcement by encouraging police officers to forget they are civilians,” writes David Rittgers, a legal analyst at the Cato Institute who served three tours in Afghanistan.
“When police officers refer to their fellow citizens as civilians and mean to exclude themselves from that category, they’ve mentally leapt from enforcing the law to destroying the enemies of the state,” Rittgers continued. “That’s incompatible with a free society.”
Also, the definition of what constitutes a “SWAT-worthy” offense has broadened considerably – as multiple federal agencies now reserve the right to knock down your door for virtually any reason.
For example, earlier this week a SWAT team raided a home in California – roughing up a man whose estranged wife had failed to pay back her student loans. What agency issued the warrant for this raid? The U.S. Department of Education – which recently purchased more than two dozen 12-gauge shotguns to help prevent “waste, fraud, abuse and other criminal activity involving federal education funds, programs and operations.”'
End excerpt.
He's right; there has been an increased paramilitarization of the civilian police, with a culture forming an "us v. them" mentality. The beat cop is gone, replaced by the cruiser. Police used to be encouraged to get to know the locals on their beat; not anymore. Now police are purposely shifted around to DISCOURAGE forming bonds with the community, ostensibly to avoid favoritism. This is a gift of the 1960's; the police were "the Man" and it was thought that they were too personally involved. Now the police are supposed to act as interchangeable automatons, clones in blue with no personality save that of officer. They have been asked to do too much, too; fight narcotics, fight terrorists, act as social workers, truant officers, etc. Much of their duties lie outside of their traditional purview. They have little choice but to view all civilians as a threat.
Bear in mind; I am not badmouthing our brave police officers, many who are outstanding people. But, as in all trades, there are good guys and there are bad guys, and I fear that the direction we are taking in this society the bad guys are rising to the top, a sort of soured cream poured into coffee. With too many laws to enforce the bad guys can do as they please.
Years ago a police officer admitted to me that he didn't need a reason to stop anyone; he could find some violation after the fact. His point was that it is impossible to obey every law; there are too many. That has created the "routine traffic stop", a phrase we bandy about but should look upon with horror; there should be no such imposition of the authority of the State for frivolous reasons. This has contributed to a loss of respect for the law in general, and of the police in particular. The cops know they aren't respected as a result, and it turns them against the public. I am NOT saying that the majority of police abuse their authority, or that they let personal pique drive their actions, but I am saying that human nature is human nature and if you are disliked and disrespected you are likely to dislike and disrespect back. It's not their fault; it's the fault of the militarization of the police, and the multiplying of laws to intervene in everyday life. Since the law has become so enormous and complex, everyone violates it as some point. We have defined ourselves as criminals by virtue of ignorance.
Again, I am NOT criticising the police; they are doing what they are told to do, told by Progressive politicians who want law to reach it's hand into everyday life. These guys are enforcing intrusive laws.
Case in point; I went to my cabin in southern Missouri (the fabled Ozark Hilton) over Memorial Day, and on my way home in the morning was quite tired, having been kept up with an upset stomach the night before. My car was driving funny; it was a bit hard to control (I would have a tire blow just a couple of days later) and a state trooper hit his flashers. I stopped, perplexed; I had been going well under the speed limit. The trooper began quizzing me on when was the last time I had a drink, and wanted to know where I was from, where I was going, etc. Because he had seen a slight wobble ONE TIME he pulled me over, hoping to arrest me for drunk driving. He had to let me go, but the point was that he had no reason to suspect anything except that my car veered a slight bit on a curvy highway. He left me and immediately turned on his lights, nailing a car that had just passed.
I don't blame the officer who was doing what they told him to do. I understand the necessity to protect drivers on the road from drunks. I get all that. But this was entirely too intrusive. He could see, even smell, that I hadn't been drinking. He had no business knowing who I was, where I was going, what I was doing; it's not his business. He ran a quick check on my licence. Why? Yes, I could turn out to be an ax-murderer, or a guy with ties to Al-Qaeda, but so could anybody. We purposely devised our system to avoid this sort of thing. America is supposed to be free; we have chosen to empower the state to make it secure. As Franklin pointed out, those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.
This instance at least involved the safety of others. What of laws designed to make us safe from ourselves? Seat belt laws, for example. Motor cycle helmet laws? Bans on distilling your own liquor? We have more and more of these all the time. The FDA bans people from buying any unpasteurized milk, whether the potential purchaser is willing to forswear the risks or not. They raided a natural dairy with guns drawn a while back, arresting the workers and hauling them to jail. Is that a free society?
Many states have made vaccinations for Human Papilloma Virus mandatory for young girls, whether the parents like it or not. HPV is only transmitted through sexual activity. It's entirely preventable, yet the government is now forcing people to subject their children to it, and many states are requiring "counseling" when these children are given the shots, exposing them to sexual knowledge their parents may not want them acquiring. Is this freedom?
Freedom is inherently risky. A society that seeks nothing but safety can never be free. We have been creating a despotism under the guise of Progressive paternalism. America is too stupid to judge her own security and needs, and so the State must tell Americans what they must do. And that has to be enforced, which means the threat of physical violence. Had I refused to cooperate with that state trooper on the road home from the Ozark Hilton I would ultimately have been shot, or beaten with a billy club. I was violating no law. But our elites have decided that their will be done, and their will is done or else! As I said, I don't blame the cop - I blame the busybodies, the doo-gooders, and most especially the collectivists who want us all to meld together into a kind of Star-Trekkian Borg.
Benito Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" for Fascist theory. It was not a pejorative. It meant a society intimately involved in the individual, with the individual intimately involved in society. The State concerns itself with all aspects of life in the Mussolinian model. This idea did not die with Mussolini; it stalks the halls of Academia, it slithers in the statehouses, it whispers in the newsrooms and public schools. Fascism is modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is totalitarian in nature, and far too many Americans think that is as it should be. They do not understand that every time they stick their noses into their neighbor's business that they have become vile despots. "There should be a law" is the cry of the fascist and tyrant.
And one could argue that we are more fascistic than the regime of Mussolini ever was; with superior technology we can dominate in ways no fascist would have dreamed. Red light cameras, speeding cameras, radar, satellite surveillance, computerized checking machines in stores, etc. If someone were to bother,they could see the Ozark Hilton, perhaps with me outside going to the bathroom, even though it is deep in the woods. That is a power that Hitler and Stalin could only dream about! Computers make it possible to trace the every movement of the individual.
Wyatt Earp was a petty criminal and a pimp in his youth; he jumped bail for horse thievery in Arkansas (a hanging offense) and went on to become one of the west's most famous lawmen. It couldn't happen today; Earps name would be on file in the computer database, and he would be banned as a felon from any sort of law enforcement. Maybe he wouldn't have hanged for stealing horses, but he would have been caught by someone and would be nothing but another criminal. Today there are no second chances, because we have built an electronic spider web. Our totalitarian system, our sticking our noses into everybody's business all of the time, would make that impossible.
And it's not just criminal records; how many conservatives in Academia fail to get tenure because of Google searches? How often does one's political viewpoint end up putting the person on a blacklist? I know it happens in academia, and doubtlessly in government.
At any rate, our efforts to build a paradise has been building instead a prison. The blaze of freedom is but a dim candle, seen mistily through the fog, flickering in the breeze. We are on the verge of letting it die.
Shame on us!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home