The Senate to review the militarizing of the police force in the wake of Ferguson

  The militarizing of the police force is something that has had some people in the blogosphere concerned for some time but it has been largely ignored by most of the American people. While I understand that riot situations require police with riot gear this is still troubling to me because the potential for abuse is great. The situation in Ferguson could be an example of the justifiable use of military armament and equipment but if nothing else it has drawn attention to this issue and the potential for abuse.

  In the wake of the Boston marathon bombing Martial Law, for all intents and purposes, was declared on Boston and the surrounding towns. In addition to this the police were conducting house to house searches, in many cases against the will of the homeowners and without concern for their fourth amendment rights, yet this did not get the attention of the American people.

  In a way I can understand this: this was an extraordinary event and in the hysteria people were looking for security at the expense of liberty. That does not make it right, but it does make it understandable.

  However the situation in Ferguson has done what the aftermath of the Boston marathon bombing failed to do: it has drawn the attention of the people to this issue at long last. And now Carl Levin is promising the Senate will review this policy. 

  Here is more:

On Friday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the Senate will “review” the Defense Department program that allows military weaponry to trickle down to police departments small and large across the country. Congress’s “1033” program allows the transfer of military equipment to local law enforcement, such as the armored vehicles seen on the streets of Ferguson as well as machine guns, magazines and grenade launchers.

“Congress established this program out of real concern that local law enforcement agencies were literally outgunned by drug criminals,” Levin said in a statement. “We intended this equipment to keep police officers and their communities safe from heavily armed drug gangs and terrorist incidents. Before the defense authorization bill comes to the Senate floor, we will review this program to determine if equipment provided by the Defense Department is being used as intended.”

  This is all very well and good but one needs to look no further than previous votes on such issues to determine how this will turn out.

  Back in July of 2013, in a bipartisan effort, the House voted to continue the NSA’s data-mining program. What united the Democrats and the Republicans? The money of course. It turns out that those who supported the NSA spying program received twice as much money in campaign donations from defense and intelligence contractors as did those who opposed the policy.

  And then in September of the same year the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs voted to authorize strikes against Syria. It just so happens that the ten members of the committee who voted in favor of the measure received 83% more in donations from defense contractors than did the seven members who voted against it.

  So how does this relate to today and the issue at hand? Those who have in the past voted to keep funding the program which has led to the militarization of the police force have received 73% more in donations than those who have opposed it.

  It does not take a genius to figure out how this Senate inquiry will go in the end, does it? In the end they are on the same page and this is Hegelian dialectic 101. Keep us running around in circles thinking that one party has our interests at heart when in the end they are on the same page.