Archives du mot-clé Ferguson

Pistorius trial. Gross confusion between premeditation and intention.

Apparently, Pistorius is guilty of culpable homicide. Which means he killed her girlfriend « unintentionnally, under a negligent conduct ».

Pistorius admitted shooting the girl. But the judge is considering him non guilty of a murder. He killed the girl unintentionally, but illegally. If you understand something, just give me a call.

Lets summarise it differently : Pistorius killed his girlfriend. His intention was not to kill her, but he did, under extreme anger that overwhelmed him. He then lost control and kill the woman illegally. Each murder is an illegal act. So, how can he be non guilty of murder but guilty of homicide. The difference is in words : apparently murder comes with the intention to kill, where as the homicide is not intentional.

Frankly, this is about judiciary qualification. The only way to be sure a murder was not intentional is to bring premeditation in.

An homicide without any intention to kill occurs in the case of force majeure or self-defense. Was Pistorius placed in such a case ? Was his life threatened by the girlfriend at the moment he killed her ?

Pistorius is guilty of murdering his girlfriend. When you kill somebody it is a deliberate act. Intention can surface only if you have acted under a force majeure or self-defense situation.

That Pistorius killed the girlfriend without premeditation – non intentionally, is something pertaining to mitigating circumstances, if any. Those circumstances don’t annul the murder.

We feel compassion for Pistorius, specially knowing the kind of efforts he has been able to regroup in order to be the man he is. If this is a mitigating circumstance, then tell it, but don’t confuse us with the Justice system.

Zimmerman killed Trayvon unintentionally. Do you remember ? And he was acquitted. He even has the nerve to imply his life was in danger, in the face of the teenager. If this is the new game, then each of us can shot whoever we want – the case at Ferguson – where we expect the Policeman, author of the 6-9 shots in the body of Brown, pleading non guilty of murder, alleging he didn’t premeditated the shooting session and has no intention to kill anyone.

He may even call for a mitigation circumstance inducing acting in the name of a State that had turned the police « Military ».

—————-

Read also. SOUTH AFRICA: NPA REACTS TO PISTORIUS JUDGMENT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT (Eurasianews)

What is wrong with Pennsylvania State Police ? Are they overmilitarised and terrorizing the citizens they are supposed to guard as in Ferguson and everywhere Police is shooting down black people, in total impunity ? By the way, is somebody informed of what the decision of the Grand Jury at Ferguson and what comes next ? Total blackout over there and President Obama has concluded his war speech by Justice and freedom. Hmm.

CNN is reporting the shooting of last night as such Two Pennsylvania State Police troopers shot late Friday night, one fatally, were ambushed just outside the police barracks in Blooming Grove, Pennsylvania, Commissioner Frank Noonan told reporters. 

The shooter or shooters have not been found, he said. « I know a lot of people are wondering if the threat is resolved. It is not, » he said.

« This attack seems to be directed particularly at the Pennsylvania State Police, » Noonan said.

President Obama’s “overt” support to Syria’s Al Qaeda rebels “opens up a can of worms” : ISIS !

In our latest post, we underlined that Obama is a Clinton or a Bush or a Carter or a Reagan, or a Nixon. See below how things match to perfection.

Yesterday, we were told that « Airstrikes alone are insufficient to deal a final blow to Isis ».

Was The defense Secretary (US) preparing the opinion to a scenario where al-qaeda will fight Isis ? Is that Al-Qaeda the « indigeneous figure » needed on the ground to stop Isis definitely ? The temptation to answer Yes at those two questions is strong.

Supporting one Terrorism (al-Qaeda) to fight another terrorism (ISIS). Where does the game stop ? Where, When and How ? It looks like an Impasse.

Below are some tracks of answers  brought by Prof. Chossudovsky.

Before reading them, some facts of the day :

1. Germany, France and the UK are drafting a resolution at the UN for a cease fire in Gaza. What are the chances of this resolution to be adopted ? What about the US vetoing it? And how are they going to implement it, assuming the resolution passed ? Is it a move for another smokescreen ? We will not prejudge at this stage.

2. By the way, Melbourne is the best place in the World to live in. Australia, Canada, Finlande, New Zeland harbor the best cities in the World. Africa got the Worst of them. Douala (Cameroon), Lagos (Nigeria), Abidjan (Ivory Coast) and Alger are worst places in the World to live in, inside Africa. Tripoli and Syria are undergoing wars. Their ranking is not that important.

Interesting, no city from the Imperialistic World is on the top 10.

World’s most liveable city 2014 is …(CNN)

3. Hamas has eliminated some insider traitors who have been informing Israel, making it easy for this criminal state (Israel) to locate the Heads of Hamas. Any Palestinian embarked on spying for Israel to derail and endanger a right cause such as the Fight For Freedom is a demon.

Israel presents itself as too Big to talk with the little boys of Hamas. How is it they got that low and coward to adopt the poor method of infiltrating the commandment of Hamas for firsthand and secret information ? Their so-called « strong intelligence » is all about smallnesses ? Is this the Great Israel fearing the little Hamas to the point of going rampant ? Disappointing. On one hand, America is helping along with the entire European World. On the other, « collaborators » inside Hamas are also helping to so-called « strong military nation » : Israel. Too mean, for the « strongest military nation of the World ». Left alone, Israel is a small state in the region. This is what the death of those 3 Hamas’ commanders stand for.

4. Gen. Dempsey: ISIS Cannot be Defeated Without Going Into Syria. Road to destroy Isis runs through Syria (Newsmax). So how to do that without the Syrian Gov authorisation or a clear violation of the Syrian territory ?  Yesterday an enemy, today… ? This is what you got with irresponsible and erratic diplomacy.

James Foley would have been saved with the sollicitation of Assad’s legal forces’ help, during the rescued mission that failed.

BBC is mentioning the price of any rapprochement of Assad by the previous enemy (US and its allies) is to stop the narrative asking « Assad to go ». Isn’t it ironical ? History works as a Doomsday. Here we are.

5. Russian humanitarian convoy is in Ukraine. After a week of Ukrainian authorities’ and customs’ checking tergiversations, it was wide past time to move forward. At this stage, any turning back was simply out of question.

Don’t forget that the US/EU coup led in Kiev is now translating into an humanitarian crisis for Russia to fund and take care. Many Ukrainians have crossed the border to find safety in Russia. For this reason, Russia has a say in Ukrainian business.

To our knowledge, the UN never condemned this horrible treacherous of Democracy and is not assisting the Displaced Ukrainians in Russia.

6. Ferguson. a) Look at this for a laugh. Conservatives literally make stuff up to smear Michael Brown A right-wing blogger used a generic CT scan found online and claimed it was a scan of Darren Wilson. The Daily Kos.

b) CNN reports « Broken Eye Socket » didn’t happen.

————————————–

 Fighting Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

 By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 22, 2014
First published by GR on June 19, 2013

A major transition in US counter-terrorism doctrine is unfolding.

While Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, remains firmly committed to waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), his administration is now openly supporting selected rebel units in Syria which are part of the Al Qaeda network.

Known and documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, which has covertly supported the “Islamic Terror Network” since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war.

While Al Qaeda is a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, a “New Normal” has been established.

An Al Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly” by the CIA.

The support of Al Nusrah, an affiliate of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), is no longer channeled in secrecy as part of a CIA-MI6 covert operation, it is now being supported –in a semi-official fashion– as part of a US foreign policy agenda. The latter is also part of America’s diplomatic discourse, implemented in consultation with Britain, Canada, Germany and France. Although Al Nusrah was not mentioned explicitly, “support to the Syrian rebels” was the main topic of debate at the June 2013 G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland.

While intelligence covert ops continue to perform an important role, Washington’s support to Al Qaeda in Syria is now “out in the open”, within the public domain. It is no longer part of a secret undertaking. It is part of the mainstay of US foreign policy, carried out under the helm of Secretary of State John Kerry.

“Support to the rebels” is also debated in the US Congress. It is the object of a bill which has already been adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Corker who co-sponsored the bill stated that:

“The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region,” (emphasis added)

In a twisted logic, the bill purports to prevent “an extremist takeover” by supporting an Al Qaeda terrorist formation.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 15-3 in favor of the proposed bill.

Ironically, the pro-Israeli lobby was also actively involved in lobbying in favor of aid to jihadist rebels.

Israel has supported Al Nusrah militarily in areas adjacent to the occupied territories of the Golan Heights.

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky (left) voted against the bill, warning:

You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” (quoted by RT)

Al Qaeda, Osama and “The Blowback”

Everybody knows that Al Qaeda is now directly supported by the US government.

The implications are far-reaching. Obama’s decision not only undermines the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), it also casts doubt on the “blowback” thesis.

Moreover, it begs the embarrassing question: Why is the US president supporting Al Nusrah, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations?

The CIA refers to the so-called “blowback” thesis whereby an “intelligence asset”, (i.e. the Islamic jihad) is said to “have gone against its sponsors”; ”

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. (The Guardian, London, September 15, 2001).

“What we’ve created blows back in our face.” The US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims. The CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going against his father”.

While the CIA acknowledges that the late Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, was an “intelligence asset” during the Cold War, the relationship is said to “go way back”. In the wake of 9/11, news reports would invariably dismiss these Osama-CIA links as part of the “bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably described as “irrelevant” to an understanding of the post-9/11 era:

Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, … Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)

Afghan Mujahideen Commanders meet with President Ronald Reagan

While the “blowback” thesis is an obvious fabrication, it has nonetheless served to provide legitimacy to the “Global War on Terrorism”. With “overt” support channeled by the US government to an Al Qaeda affiliated organization, the blowback thesis falls flat, it is no longer credible.

The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the “Islamic Militant Network”. Historically, US covert support to terrorists was a safely guarded secret, unknown to the broader public. Moreover, the CIA would never channel its support directly. It would proceed through its intelligence counterparts in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.

The broad political and media consensus in the wake of the 9/11 attacks was built around the blowback: Al Qaeda had attacked America.

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) against Al Qaeda and its affiliates had been launched. Yet the evidence amply confirms that US intelligence continues to harbor several terrorist organizations which are on the US State Department’s list.

Paradoxically, covert support to the terrorists by Western intelligence agencies (including the CIA, MI6, Germany’s BND) is an essential instrument of the “Global War on Terrorism”. Namely the war on terror to protect the Homeland is waged by using US-NATO sponsored terrorists and mercenaries as foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.

The support provided covertly to “jihadist” terrorist organizations in a large number of countries (e.g. former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Niger, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, etc.) has been used by the US-NATO alliance to destabilize sovereign states.

Obama and Al Nusrah. The “State Sponsors of Terrorism”

Al Qaeda was identified as the mastermind of the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 was immediately identified as a “state sponsor of terrorism” leading to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces on October 7, 2001. In turn, a gamut of counterterrorism legislation and executive orders were put in place in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001 “authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists.” (Sept. 23, 2001).

The US Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The legislation was in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which allegedly had been perpetrated by Al Qaeda.

According to the 2001 Patriot Act, those “who pay for the bomb“, namely those who fund affiliates of Al Qaeda, are terrorists. In the words of George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The Act pertains to the harboring and financing of terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are defined in the PATRIOT Act as a terror network. Persons and organizations which support or abet Al Qaeda are considered as terrorists.

The forbidden question: Does the substance of Executive order 13224 and the PATRIOT legislation quoted above apply to a US president, a Secretary of State, a Member of the US Congress?

The Department of Justice “has prosecuted individuals and organizations for providing material support to the terrorist organization, while the Department of Treasury has frozen the assets of dozens of terrorist financiers and networks.” (See Council on Foreign Relations)

Similar measures, including the freezing of assets or organizations supportive of terrorism, were adopted in the European Union. “Since 2007, Britain’s Ministry of Finance has frozen the assets (PDF) of hundreds of individuals and organizations connected to al-Qaeda via its Asset Freezing Unit.” (Ibid)

National governments which provide support to Al Qaeda are categorised as “State-sponsors of terrorism”.

The designation is determined by the US State Department. In fact, the Secretary of State, namely John Kerry has the authority “to determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” (State Department List), See also the Counterterrorism Bureau)

Barack Obama and John Kerry: Are They “Terror Suspects”?

Now let us examine in more detail the Al Nusrah Front, which constitutes the main rebel fighting force in Syria. Al Nusrah is affiliated to Al Qaeda. The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, has pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced Osama bin Laden after his death.

According to the State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, Jabhat al Nusrah, the main rebel force in Syria is a terrorist organization, an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

The State Department has issued a “prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.” (emphasis added).

It is understood that US State Department Counter-terrorism policy also applies to “state sponsors of terrorism”.

Al Nusrah is financed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel in close consultation with NATO and the Pentagon.

The Obama administration has openly confirmed its support for the Syrian rebels with most of this aid channeled to Al Nusrah.

The PATRIOT Act “prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”.

Moreover, an entire gamut of executive orders as well as the 2001 Patriot legislation prohibit “the harboring of terrorists”.

According to the US Justice Department:

The Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.” The terror threat emanates both from “the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button”.

According to the Patriot legislation, those “who pay for the bomb”, namely funding affiliates of Al Qaeda, constitutes a terrorist act.

In other words, the Obama administration and its allies are harboring a terror organization which is on the US State department list.

In this regard, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could be held responsible for knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front:

“The [PATRIOT] Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”, yet the Obama administration is openly supporting a terrorist entity, in violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation.

Media Complicity

According to CNN, quoting intelligence sources, Al Nusrah is “the best-equipped arm of the terror group” in Syria, with an estimated 10,000 forces. Where do they get their money and weapons? CNN does not provide any details as to Why Al Nusrah is the best equipped, in relation to the various so-called moderate rebels factions, which from a military standpoint are broadly inoperative.

How many of these Al Nusrah forces remain operative following the government’s counteroffensive remains to be established.

Ironically, this latest CNN report (June 18, 2013 suggests that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession:

“They [Al Nusrah] are making desperate attempts to get chemical weapons,” the analyst told CNN, noting that in the past few weeks, security services in Iraq and Turkey arrested [Al Nusrah] operatives who were “trying to get their hands on sarin.”

In relation to the later, Turkish Police confirmed that the arrested Al Nusrah operative was in possession of sarin gas.

CNN contradicts its own reports. The same CNN article which intimated that the rebels were “attempting to get” chemical weapons, makes the case for “arming the rebels”:

The Obama administration announced last week that it will start arming rebels because Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons — including sarin gas — against the opposition.

The development is likely to be at the center of the Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland on Monday, setting a riveting backdrop to the meeting after Syria’s longtime ally Russia said the move supports “those who kill their enemies and eat their organs.”

…Obama has not detailed the increased military support, but Washington officials told CNN that the plan includes providing small arms, ammunition and possibly anti-tank weapons to the rebels.

The Broader Implications of Obama’s Support of Al Nusrah

The blowback thesis is now defunct. The US has never ceased to support Al Qaeda. These terrorist organizations were created by US intelligence and supported by Washington. The blowback thesis is refuted not only by Obama’s “overt support” of Al Nusrah but also with regard to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an Al Qaeda affiliate, which was directly supported by NATO from the outset of the insurgency and Libya bombing campaign in 2011.

The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) has become an increasingly fragile concept. Waging a “War on Terrorism” with the active participation of an Al Qaeda affiliated organization constitutes an obvious fallacy, a big lie, a non sequitur.

The propaganda and media disinformation campaign behind the “Global War on Terrorism” has also entered a dead alley. Going after the terrorists by supporting the terrorists? Will the American public support a government which funnels billions of tax dollars to a terrorist organization as a means to “combating terrorism”?

The Pentagon’s post-911 military doctrine is predicated on the “Global War on Terrorism”. It is a consensus within US military. It is used in the recruitment, training and indoctrination of US forces.

Will American servicemen and women accept to swallow the big lie and fight in what visibly constitutes a fake “war on terrorism”.

The Criminalisation of the US State

President Obama’s “overt” support to Syria’s Al Qaeda rebels “opens up a can of worms”.

How are we to categorize an American President who says he is committed to fighting Al Qaeda, while at the same time supporting Al Qaeda?

The entire Homeland Security doctrine tumbles like a deck of cards.

The US government is in blatant violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation.


Order Directly from Global Research

America’s “War on Terrorism”

Michel Chossudovsky

originalIn this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovskys 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by Islamic terrorists. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the war on terrorism is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The war on terrorism is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the New World Order, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washingtons agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

Also available other formats

For PDF format, click here

For Kindle edition, click to visit Amazon.com

Special: Americas War on Terrorism + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Jay Nixon is an incompetent governor. The right answer is Justice not Cynical Forces.

Is the Governor racist ? Apparently yes. Is he cynical ? Yes, putting the black puppet, Captain Johnson at the fake position of the Leader of Police forces coupled with his status of spokeperson of the state and Ferguson forces. A parrot.

Excerpt (see below)

For a community that is 2/3 African American, there are only three black officers on the 53 person police force. According to the Missouri Attorney General annual report on policing, although blacks make up 63% of the population of Ferguson, they make up 86% of police stops. Blacks are almost two times as likely to be searched and are arrested twice as often as whites although whites are more likely to possess contraband (Kevin Zeese). 

Captain Johnson can be black. It represents the Racist board of direction at Ferguson using a black man to lie to the people over their truly nature and intentions. Calling the military federal unit at the time the second autopsy on Brown is showing the young man was shot 6 times – 3 bullets at the head is insane and ultimately provocative and contemptuous.

How many autopsies the Attorney General is going to conduct before the Officer is brought to Justice ? This third autopsy looks like a joke. Are the coroners also incompetent ? Crazy.

Until Justice is done, demonstrations will not end. Justice is not a favor, it is a Constitutional Citizen Right, Black or White and a Duty for a well governing State. By the way A curfew can be attacked in Court in regard to the respect of individual rights related to freedom of circulation and meeting in public places.

>>> That is why we wrote yesterday that : DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY TO IMPLEMENT A CURFEW IS A WRONG DECISION. 

Lootings  are part of the whole showdown.

Some have said Michael brown was a theft and he had threatened a little police man who happened to be white with his 1,93 height and 135 weight. Michael Brown was apparently marching towards the little police man, who, caught by fear to be eaten by the Black ogre, found itself in a position of legitime defence in front of an unarmed teenager of 18. The wrong instructed Zimmerman’s case is back. Another case of incompentence by some grand Jury. What about Trayvon ?

If you call this a police man, being afraid of an unarmed boy, then this man was not at the right place.

I invite you to take a look at this article by Eurasia news:

1OPINIONSOCIAL ISSUESUNITED STATES

FERGUSON EXPOSES REALITY OF MILITARIZED, RACIST POLICING – OPED

By  and 

The killing of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, MO police officer, who was identified Friday as Darren Wilson, and the aftermath in which nonviolent protesters and reporters were met with a violent and militarized police force have exposed something that has been building for years. Many have written about the militarization of the police and the disproportionate impact they have on people of color, but now more Americans are seeing this reality and cannot escape it.

Capture-nO-mORE-nAMESMichael Brown is one of four unarmed black men killed in the last month by police. On July 17, Eric Garner was killed by an illegal chokehold in New York. On August 5, John Crawford was shot in a store in Beavercreek, OH. Just after Brown’s death, on August 9Ezell Ford, a young man with known mental illness, was shot in Los Angeles. These are four examples of many, according to a recent study, a black man is killed every 28 hours by police, security guards or vigilantes. The whole nation is experiencing these tragedies; reality is being forced upon us.

The public reaction to the event has been immense. On Thursday evening protests were held from coast-to-coast expressing solidarity with the people of Ferguson and grief for the death of Michael Brown and the deaths of others across the nation killed by police. There are now increasing calls for the demilitarization of the police by the Attorney General and elected officials. And, the DOJ has announced a broad review of police practices that lead to deadly force. People are taking action pressuring the DOJ to act, see: Tell The Department of Justice to end racist and militaristic policing.

This is a teachable moment and an opportunity to advance the cause of transforming the police. Hundreds of thousands of Americans watched events unfold in Ferguson. They saw the police tear gassing a community in mourning, firing at them with rubber bullets and using sound canons to disperse them. They saw military-style police chase them into neighborhoods where they continued to fire tear gas and rubber bullets. They saw reporters abused and arrested as a SWAT team took over a McDonald’s where they were reporting from and other reporters attacked with tear gas and then the police dismantling the journalist’s equipment.

These events led to news outlets reporting on the actions of the police with even greater intensity. In response to the arrest of one of their reporters, Ryan Grim wrote an official Huffington Post statement about the journalist’s arrest which made a key point: “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time.” The police in Ferguson did an excellent job of drawing the nation’s attention to the reality of 21st Century policing and the need to dramatically change its direction.

The rhetoric of a “war” on drugs and “war” on crime is no longer mere rhetoric.

Over the last few decades police forces in the United States, down to small town forces, have been militarized by the federal government.  Militarization has been part of the escalating clampdown on dissent; and the targets of these extreme policing practices are disproportionately communities of color.  Practices like ‘stop and frisk’ and ‘driving while black,’ as well as policies focused on Arabs and Muslims, have shown that racially-based policing is the intentional policy of police across the country.

Much of this has been growing in police departments in secret without transparency or public debate.

Would the public want a militarized police force if they had a voice in the decision? Without a democratic process, the US has essentially created a standing army that violates the fundamentals of the US Constitution. The military police force applies the law unequally, violating equal protection of the laws and undermining the justice system as police take on the role of judge and executioner.

How Did We Get Here?

Racist policing is not new. 

As Victor E. Kappeler points out, “the St. Louis police were founded to protect residents from Native Americans in that frontier city” and “in 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the nation’s first slave patrol.” These patrols developed into the first police departments.  The purpose of the first police was to control the slave population and protect the property interests of slave holders. This disastrous racial legacy continues to this day.

Ferguson is not unusual when it comes to racially unfair policing, tensions between police and the African American community has been building for years. For a community that is 2/3 African American, there are only three black officers on the 53 person police force. According to the Missouri Attorney General annual report on policing, although blacks make up 63% of the population of Ferguson, they make up 86% of police stops. Blacks are almost two times as likely to be searched and are arrested twice as often as whites although whites are more likely to possess contraband. While these are ugly statistics, the state of Missouri is even worse.The NAACP sued St. Louis for the racial disparity in its traffic stops. One resident told the Washington Post: “Everybody in this city has been a victim of DWB [driving while black].”

The militarization of police is a more recent phenomenon.  

Peter Kraska of the University of Eastern Kentucky has been writing about this since the early 1990s. He documents the rapid rise of Police Paramilitary Units (PPU’s, informally SWAT teams) which are modeled after special operations teams in the military.  PPU’s did not exist anywhere until 1971when Los Angeles under the leadership of the infamous police chief Daryl Gates, formed the first one and used it for demolishing homes with tanks equipped with battering rams.  By 2000, there were 30,000 police SWAT teams; Kraska reports that by the late 1990s, 89% of police departments in cities of over 50,000 had PPUs, almost double the mid-80s figure; and in smaller towns of between 25,000 and 50,000 by 2007, 80% had a PPU quadrupling from 20% in the mid-80s.

And Kraska reported that SWAT teams were active with 45,000 deployments in 2007 compared to 3,000 in the early 80s.  The most common use he found was for serving drug search warrants where they were used 80% of the time, but they were also increasingly used for patrolling neighborhoods. These numbers are consistent with a recent report by the ACLU.

Another important chronicler of the rise of militarism in policing is Radley Balko, author ofRise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.  He reported a “1,500% increase in the use of SW AT teams over the last two decades” and wrote in the ABA Journalin 2013that “SWAT teams violently smash into private homes more than 100 times per day.” Their use of flash-bang grenades has caused injuries to children and aseven year old was shot and killed in her sleep when a SWAT team forced entry into the wrong house. There are many examples of similar abuses.

Colin Jenkins points out in Coming Home to Roost: American Militarism, War Culture, and Police Brutality, that this was a gradual process. There was never a debate about militarizing the police but instead a series of decisions around the late 60s protest movement, the drug war and post 9/11 policing. The trend became particularly noticeable in the 1980s when the Reagan-era drug war created exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, a Reconstruction Era law that kept the military out of domestic enforcement. This is when SWAT teams began to be used to serve drug search warrants. The post-9/11 era gave police even greater power under the Patriot Act and seemingly unlimited resources to fight terrorism. Of course militarized police have rarely been used to fight domestic terrorism because there really is not much terrorism in the US to fight.

Jenkins points out billions of dollars of military equipment have flowed to police departments across the country: “They possess everything from body armor to high-powered weaponry to tanks, armored vehicles, and even drones.” He asks why, pointing out that it is not because of safety, noting there are 50 fatalities annually out of 900,000 officers nationwide. That is 1 out of 18,000 police maliciously killed each year (the odds of being killed by lightning in your lifetime are 1 out of 3,000).  He blames the US war culture and believes police have become militaristic because they have shifted from defense to offense where they aggressively confront and repress the people, rather than protect and serve the community.

The problem may also be compounded by programs such as the Chamber of Commerce’s ‘Hiring our Heroes,’ that intentionally seek out active military and veterans to work in police departments. The DoJ has a program called ‘COPS’ that fast tracks members of the military into police work. The San Antonio Police Departments boasts that military personnel transition smoothly into police work. Perhaps it is because they are using the same equipment and techniques. This raises concerns about what effect police work in a militarized environment has on veterans who experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Then there is the problem of police steroid use which has psychological impact, i.e. “roid rage.”

It is important to emphasize that we got to this point without public debate.

…..

A lot of the para-military law enforcement activities are conducted with multi-agency task forces that also lack transparency.

The police are ruling themselves, rather than being ruled by the people in any democratic way.

Another area where militarized police are used is in cracking down on political dissent. 

During the occupy encampments there was aggressive use of militarized police across the country as part of the forced closing of the encampments. Again, this occurs in part through federalization of local policing operating as part of Joint Terrorism Task Forceswith federal agencies like the FBI or Homeland Security.  It not only affected Occupy but the military was on call for both the Democratic and Republican Conventions in 2012again operating with local police under the auspices of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces as part of the military’s Northern Command.

What is needed to end militarized policing?  

FOR THE WHOLE STORY – GO TO EURASIANEWS…

FACT OF THE DAY

Julian Assange is announcing he is going to leave the Ecuador Embassy SOON. Ah han. He needs treatment and freedom.

Gaza/Israel, the stalemate is looming. Israel needs State’s Men to lead this overmilitarised nation, enrolling teens, by force, in its paramilitary society. So far Palestinians have had to deal with the Israeli cabinet’s post-nazism fanaticized ideologues.

The lifting of Gaza Blockade is non negociable. Gazans are not beasts but Human Beings.

Israel security is not a precondition to peace but a consequence of that.

On this point read our previous posts :

Netanyahu, the Terminator angel.

Gaza.

Blocus of Gaza = Boycott of Israel.

ISRAEL HAS COMMITTED A GENOCIDE IN GAZA. THE TIME FOR ANOTHER NURENBERG IS AHEAD.