War on Whom?

Critics who decry “police militarization” over AR-15’s are missing the point.  The real issue isn’t the gear, it’s the military attitude.  When “to serve and protect” becomes “this is war” we have a problem.  Police need gear like body armor and night vision goggles.  They need modern semiautomatic rifles because the bad guys have them.  Armored vehicles can shield officers and civilians and even block dangerous criminals from escaping, and  their use is valid as long as the vehicles aren’t used solely for intimidating the public.  Police don’t need machine guns, hand grenades, or missiles because they’re not law enforcement tools, they’re weapons of war used to rapidly and indiscriminately kill large numbers of people.  Even their “flash-bang” grenades, which are incendiary devices, require caution.  They may be appropriate for ending a hostage crisis but they shouldn’t be the first resort in a nonviolent case.  SWAT teams were created to deal with violent situations but they’re increasingly being used for routine police operations that may actually increase the risk to the public.  As many as 80,000 SWAT deployments are estimated every year.  Does it make sense to send a SWAT team over a traffic violation?  Sadly these SWAT teams are sometimes sent to incorrect addresses with tragic consequences.  How much “collateral damage” is acceptable in this “war”?

Much of this war mentality comes from the “war on drugs”, a subject intentionally previously discussed.  No incident demonstrates the war mentality more than when police threw a flash-bang into a home from which there was no obvious threat.  They were after a low-level drug dealer (not a serial killer) and they relied on the word of a “snitch” instead of conducting the basic surveillance that would have told them that the dealer wasn’t there but a child was.  But no, they threw the grenade first, severely burning a child who must now suffer ongoing surgeries and disfiguration while the family suffers a 7-figure medical bill.  That wasn’t executing an arrest warrant, it was using a battlefield tactic where everyone in the house was “the enemy”.  The state must approve of battlefield tactics as it denies any responsibility for the child’s injuries.  Don’t blame the flash-bang, blame the war attitude that ordered it to be thrown, and don’t blame the child if he never trusts the police.

We’ve also seen unarmed drivers shot during routine traffic stops.  It’s a tense moment for the officer when the driver reaches in the glove box for the registration, so why not stop asking for the paper registration?  It’s obsolete!  When the officer “runs the plates” the computer shows (or should) the make and model of vehicle, registered owner, registration date, and whether the vehicle has warrants outstanding or has been reported stolen.  If the computer check is clean it’s probably just a traffic stop and if it isn’t the officer knows to be careful.  The tense moment is eliminated.

Let’s turn to Federal government militarization.  Unless the USDA is expecting an uprising of zombie chickens it needs to explain why it’s buying submachine guns.  Again, fully automatic weapons aren’t for routine law enforcement.  For that matter, why are so many government agencies suddenly  being armed and given law enforcement power?  The FDA and NASA have armed teams.  Even the “gun-free zone” Department of Education has armed agents.  The Federal government has law enforcement agencies including the FBI and US Marshals who, along with local police, could support these other agencies when needed.   What’s the purpose of this “civilian army”?  Since civilians can’t be deployed to fight overseas, who is this army going to fight, and why?

Why are so many unarmed suspects being shot multiple times? Don’t all lives matter?


Give me three for sovereignty

The Senate shall ratify no treaty that taxes US citizens or infringes on their legal rights within the borders of the USA.

If you believe the leader of any other country has the right to dictate what we do in our homes or levy a tax on us you’re free to move to their country.  This is a rejection of the “one world” concept that is nothing but a socialist effort at control of people and global redistribution of wealth.  The world is too diverse to have “one world”, the best we can do is cooperate with one another while retaining our individuality.

There is no law in the US except US law.

This is a rejection of some peoples’ demands that the laws (or even customs) of other countries should apply here, even if they conflict with our laws.  Again, if you find our legal system offensive you’re free to leave.  A common example is Sharia Law, which some advocate for.  It’s incompatible with US law in many ways, and here’s one example: Sharia Law allows a man to beat his wife.  With states toughening laws on domestic violence how could the country legalize it for one group?

Our Constitutional rights don’t globe-hop with us.  If you’re charged with a crime in another country you’ll be tried under their laws, maybe more than once if they don’t have protection against double jeopardy.  Unless we have a reciprocity agreement with another nation their laws don’t apply here.  That doesn’t mean you can’t be extradited if you commit a crime overseas and return home.  If we have an extradition treaty with that country you can be returned to face trial.

The US shall manage it’s foreign debt so that no other nation acquires undue influence or power over us.

Debt empowers the debt holder.  A nation that holds a large amount of US debt gains undue influence in policy making.  If large enough that debt could even be used as an economic weapon during a crisis.  The government must act first in the interest of it’s own people, not the will of debt holders.