Speaking to the Fraternal Order of Police in Tennessee on Monday 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, NH, 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.
Poster Comment:
#1: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#0)
It is peculiar. When did police last use bayonets? For that matter, have police ever used bayonets in America?
Of course, the Pentagon needs to get rid of its bayonet supply (so some general's brother-in-law can sell them some new Bayonets With Bluetooth) and giving the old bayonets to the PDs probably saves the military a lot of money in not having to put them in a landfill.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-30 01:36:44 Reply Private Reply
#2: XDMAR To: Tooconservative (#1)
XDMAR posted on 2017-08-30 06:24:14 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: XDMAR (#2)
Do police anywhere around the world use bayonets? I've never seen it.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-30 07:16:34 Reply Private Reply
#4: Stoner To: Tooconservative (#1)
I can't imagine them ever needing bayonets. Only possible use would be on riot control, but most do not have longer type battle rifles to attach them to. And they do not have riots that often. So, no need.
Stoner posted on 2017-08-30 07:58:11 Reply Private Reply
#5: Deckard To: hondo68, XDMR, Tooconservative, Stoner (#0)
“If we’re training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier’s mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not.”— Arthur Rizer, former police officer and member of the military
Now ask yourself: why does a police department which hasn’t had an officer killed in the line of duty in over 125 years in a town of less than 20,000 people need tactical military vests like those used by soldiers in Afghanistan?
Why does a police department in a city of 35,000 people need a military-grade helicopter?
For that matter, what possible use could police at Ohio State University have for acquiring a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts?
It’s a modern-day Trojan Horse.
Deckard posted on 2017-08-30 08:04:49 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: Deckard, hondo68, XDMAR, Stoner (#5)
You can have a very violent offender shooting at cops, even in a town where no officer has been killed in over 125 years. No one objects that much to giving cops body armor.
I think some of this surplus gear and even the free armored vehicles is much more about military suppliers being located in key congressional districts and retired generals sitting on the corporate boards of those companies. If wars around the world are winding down somewhat and the existing military is fully equipped, why not use political pull to keep those factories going to supply the MRAPs and bayonets and such to civilian PDs almost for free? After all, only a cop-hater could object, no?
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-30 08:28:25 Reply Private Reply
#7: Stoner To: Tooconservative, Deckard, hondo68, XDMAR (#6)
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Many taxpayers may think it is a waste of tax dollars.
Personally, I have no problem with the body armor, NV devices,even M-4's. But MRAP's, helicopters, and such for little podunk departmments. No, that is a bit excessive. Besides, many of those little burgs, the maintenance costs on a lot of that equipment for the locals is very high.
It also seems as though that DOD may be buying too much stuff to begin with. If most of this stuff they are giving away as surplus has been used very little if at all, then they are buying too much. Again, waste of tax dollars. But I guess it is good for campaign "contributions" from defense dept suppliers.
If Podunk PD has all those "cool" new toys, they will be looking for reasons to use them. That is not good
Stoner posted on 2017-08-30 09:14:38 Reply Private Reply
#8: Tooconservative To: Stoner (#7)
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-30 09:51:44 Reply Private Reply
#9: Hondo68 To: Deckard, Tooconservative, Stoner (#5)
Policing (NG) with bayonets, Kent State 1970
That didn't work out so well.
Hondo68 posted on 2017-08-30 15:51:09 Reply Private Reply
#10: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#9)
So I think that is not a plus for deploying troops (or cops) with bayonets against American civilians. It just looks wrong.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-30 16:54:34 Reply Private Reply
#11: A Pole To: hondo68 (#0)
A Pole posted on 2017-08-30 17:41:24 Reply Private Reply
#12: nolu chan To: hondo68 (#9)
Those are not police, and they were not policing. That was a unit of the armed forces. Messing with them is ill advised. They are called out to handle something too big for the police.
nolu chan posted on 2017-08-30 19:00:06 Reply Private Reply
#13: Stoner To: hondo68 (#9)
No it did not work out well.
Four Kent State University students were killed and nine injured when members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire.
They were shot, no one was bayoneted.
Stoner posted on 2017-08-30 21:40:31 Reply Private Reply
#14: Hondo68 To: Stoner, a soulution in search of a problem (#13)
The bayonets seem to serve no real purpose there, and I've never heard of them being useful to police.
I'm going to make a wild guess, and say that the feds giving bayonets to police, will not change crime statistics one bit. It's a waste of money.
A "solution" in search of a problem.
Hondo68 posted on 2017-08-30 22:42:12 Reply Private Reply
#15: Stoner To: hondo68 (#14)
Yep. It primarily is an excuse to say " we need new bayonets " and someones brother in law can sell them to the govt, and many get a taste of the contract.
Stoner posted on 2017-08-30 23:09:23 Reply Private Reply