According to the New York Times, the White House is having “second thoughts” about the policy of arming U.S. police to the teeth. The images from Ferguson, Missouri – of police kitted out like paratroopers with sniper rifles and armoured cars – is causing consternation in Congress. President Barack Obama has ordered a “comprehensive review.”
Michael Brown before deadly Ferguson shooting: ‘One day the whole world will know my name’
Michael Brown Jr. was on the verge of starting college, eager to launch himself into the adult world. Instead, on Monday he’ll be mourned at his funeral, more than two weeks after he was shot dead by a white police officer — an act that ignited days of violent protests and reawakened racial tensions that still linger in the nation.
Brown, who was unarmed, became an instant symbol of racial injustice as protesters flooded into the streets after his death. Civil rights leaders said the shooting in this predominantly black St. Louis suburb revived long simmering questions about police treatment of minorities across the U.S.
During more than a week of demonstrations — marred by Molotov cocktails and billowing clouds of tear gas — Brown’s name and face were frequently visible on T-shirts and picket signs. Some also chanted: “I AM MIKE BROWN!”
It would be shocking if anything came of the review. It may indeed find that U.S. police are now treated more as paramilitary units than a force built for handing out speeding tickets and investigating burglaries. But if practical experience is any guide, the response will be tepid. It’s just not in the DNA of the country or of the law enforcement community.
Scott Olson/Getty Images Demonstrators, protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, hold up signs after they were ordered off the street on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
Americans as a nation still see weaponry as a solution rather than a problem. Every time there is some mass killing, weapon sales increase. When school children are murdered by a crazed gunman, millions of Americans – illogically – figure if more people had guns, the danger would be less. Oceans of ink and airtime have been dedicated to disputing this conclusion, but —time and again — it runs up against a solid wall of resistance. Americans will not give up their guns, and if ordinary citizens feel so emotionally tied to their weaponry, you can imagine how much greater that mindset is among police.
The idea that U.S. police weren’t adequately armed grew legs after 9/11. In the national furor that followed the terrorist attacks on New York, a consensus was reached to protect the “homeland”, no matter how extravagant the cost. It was understandable at the time – there had never been anything like the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil and the country was understandably set on ensuring there was never a sequel.
On that basis, billions of dollars were set aside to allow police to beef up their manpower, weaponry and equipment. In addition, the Pentagon stepped up the transfer of military supplies and gear to police across the country.
But something went awry in the thinking. Somewhere along the line, Washington forgot that the terrorists, by and large, lived somewhere else. Osama bin Laden hatched his plan from a remote camp in Afghanistan, and was eventually gunned down in Pakistan. U.S. drone attacks have focused on places like Yemen and the wild, lawless areas of northern Pakistan. ISIS, the more brutal rival to al Qaeda, operates from Iraq and Syria.
On those occasions when domestic U.S. violence has had potential links to Islamist or terrorist motivations — the 2009 Fort Hood shootings or the Boston Marathon bombings – the guilty were either immediately evident, or were tracked down through traditional police methods. Nothing in the police arsenals made any difference at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, the “Dark Knight” shootings or any of the other various massacres that have continue to shock Americans despite their frequency.
Nonetheless, the weapons have poured in. According to the Times, the police arsenal includes tens of thousands of machine guns, hundreds of thousands of ammunition magazines, silencers, body armour, camouflage, night-vision equipment, armoured cars, aircraft, and the training to use it. The booty can’t be blamed on partisan politial leanings – vice-president Joe Biden is reportedly a big fan of one particular grant program that lets police buy “weapons, armor and other equipment.” It takes a truly unconventional thinker – like the libertarian senator Rand Paul, who thinks Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk” — to suggest the country should “demilitarize” the police.
It won’t happen. As has been demonstrated any number of times, police are particularly immune to any reform that involves less manpower, fewer guns or less weaponry. No politician – whether local, state or federal – wants to be caught suggesting police should get by with less. Senior police officials, and police unions, are highly skilled at implying that even one less bullet could leave them hampered in their ability to ensure the safety and security of the community.
The images from Ferguson are the natural result of that. Cops in body armour and riot gear, aiming sniper rifles or other heavy weaponry directly at citizens in T-shirts and jeans, is what you get when you build a national paramilitary force that has been taught to treat fellow Americans like the Taliban, or that sees any mass gathering of people as a “threat” that may need to be confronted with lethal force.
Fortunately, authorities in Ferguson haven’t killed anyone since the original shooting, of Michael Brown, which set off the confrontation. The anger that would be unleashed if they had doesn’t bear contemplating. But the result would probably be the same: more weapons, not less. That’s just the way the U.S. does business.
National Post
KellyMcParland
No comments:
Post a Comment