The United States of SWAT? Military-style gov't units wreaking havoc on non-violent citizens.

National Review ^ | 04/18/2014 | John Fund

[SeekAndFind]

Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.

They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

“Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

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 non-violent civil or administrative violations.

Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.

The year before the raid on Wright, a SWAT team from the Food and Drug Administration raided the farm of Dan Allgyer of Lancaster, Pa. His crime was shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines to a cooperative of young women with children in Washington, D.C., called Grass Fed on the Hill. Raw milk can be sold in Pennsylvania, but it is illegal to transport it across state lines. The raid forced Allgyer to close down his business.

Brian Walsh, a senior legal analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it is inexplicable why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready: “If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a warrant, they should be required to call a real law-enforcement agency, one that has a better sense of perspective. The FBI, for example, can draw upon its vast experience to determine whether there is an actual need for a dozen SWAT agents.”

Since 9/11, the feds have issued a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team. 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 today.

Once SWAT teams are created, they will be used. Nationwide, they are used for standoffs, often serious ones, with bad guys. But at other times they’ve been used for crimes that hardly warrant military-style raids. Examples include angry dogs, domestic disputes, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. In 2010, a Phoenix, Ariz., sheriff’s SWAT team that included a tank and several armored vehicles raided the home of Jesus Llovera. The tank, driven by the newly deputized action-film star Steven Seagal, plowed right into Llovera’s house. The incident was filmed and, together with footage of Seagal-accompanied immigration raids, was later used for Seagal’s A&E TV law-enforcement reality show.

The crime committed by Jesus Llovera was staging cockfights. During the sheriff’s raid, his dog was killed, and later all of his chickens were put to sleep.

Many veteran law-enforcement figures have severe qualms about the turn police work is taking. One retired veteran of a large metropolitan police force told me: “I was recently down at police headquarters for a meeting. Coincidently, there was a promotion ceremony going on and the SWAT guys looked just like members of the Army, except for the police shoulder patches. Not an image I would cultivate. It leads to a bad mindset.”

Indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s Third Amendment, against the quartering of troops in private homes, was part of an overall reaction against the excesses of Britain’s colonial law enforcement. “It wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia,” Balko writes. “It was England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement.”

There are things that can be done to curb the abuses without taking on the politically impossible job of disbanding SWAT units. The feds should stop shipping military vehicles to local police forces. Federal SWAT teams shouldn’t be used to enforce regulations, but should focus instead on potentially violent criminals. Cameras mounted on the dashboards of police cars have both brought police abuses to light and exonerated officers who were falsely accused of abuse. SWAT-team members could be similarly equipped with helmet cameras.

After all, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill and cede ground on their Fourth Amendment rights, they have the right to a transparent, accountable record of just what is being done in their name.

– John Fund is national-affairs columnist at National Review Online.

[Gen.Blather]

“I have to wonder what the solution will “really” be...”

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of, “we need an strong enough outside foe to keep us all united.” We need another World War 2 to rid us of the useless takers by giving them jobs. To bring back industry and self-reliance. But a world war would more likely give us death within 20 minutes. We no longer have the luxury of two oceans and three days travel at the fastest speed between continents. Also, there is not a single politician I’d trust to guide us at this point.

[DanielRedfoot]

I remember that, those SWAT IDIOTS blindly opened fire in mass, in a subdivision, on a boat, hull first , no doubt sending rounds deflecting everywhere, with absolutely no target acquired. Amazing no neighbors were hurt.

And we are the ones that can’t be trusted with firearms...

[stevie_d_64]

To be another wet short on your back on a cold day...

I do not believe there would be enough citizenry to fight against a foe of the likes we fought against in those wars...

Wars nowadays are asymmetrical conflicts that are reluctantly joined by their opposition on purely a political and diplomatic reasoning...The enemy would almost have to take a few of those glad handers out in a most violent manner, and even then it is the collective cynicism of our side that would almost dance in the street if that were to occur, considering the political nature of the appointments of the current administration...

I posted a story earlier in the week about if a nuke were to take out D.C., what would we do???

Most of the responses were tongue in cheek, brash and off color, with most saying good riddance...

To which I could not as the original OP throw rocks at...

So I believe whomever is in the drivers seat (presidency) the opposition would still obfuscate, and or basically be indifferent to the loss of life of those in power (the majority) at the time...

Our society (politically) is that calluse...

To game it out...Do you believe if the BLM SWAT wannabes had opened fire and killed a lot of those ranchers and the people out there supporting them, would there really be a substantive “nationwide” outrage???

I do not believe so...There would be regional clashes, sure, but nothing across the entire country if that had occurred...

At the most, the immediate backlash would be directed right at the BLM director, and possibly the Secretary of the Interior...But for it to reach outside of that to any ethical malfeasance by an elected official like Harry Reid or even the president would not gain traction for simply political reasons, and the court of public opinion would be kept in check by a willing MSM to keep the majority of the population dumb to the truth...

That’s just my opinion...

As I have time to game it out more I may adjust that opinion slightly, but I am factoring in a lot of history into this...I do not see anything right now to change it up right now...

[Nowhere Man]

Wish I could buy one of these as a countermeasure:



Davidson/Cadillac armored car, 1915, top speed 70 MPH. It even has an M1895 Colt/Browning machine gun.

[Nowhere Man]

With the provocation I’ve seen thus far, I don’t see that happening. If they start mowing down civilians, possibly. But whoever fires first will lose the public’s support.

Unless it is a special case, the one who fires first is seen ad the aggressor, bad guy or just plain in the wrong. This is for another time since it is generally OT but looking at history, the big mistake the Confederacy made was to fire first.

[Nowhere Man]

This country is divided as at no other time since 1775 and 1861. Its almost 50-50. That cannot continue. One side has to win. It will not be decided at the ballot box.

It's scary and if we cannot turn this around, I'm afraid you are right. B-( I think maybe a modified version of this is the country will "whimper out" under it's own and break apart through entropy but this could be bad too, countries like Russia, the UK, Red China, France and so on could panic and send a few nukes our way as a counterforce strike.

[Nowhere Man]

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of, “we need an strong enough outside foe to keep us all united.” We need another World War 2 to rid us of the useless takers by giving them jobs. To bring back industry and self-reliance. But a world war would more likely give us death within 20 minutes. We no longer have the luxury of two oceans and three days travel at the fastest speed between continents. Also, there is not a single politician I’d trust to guide us at this point.

That's the problem, I doubt you'd get a single consensus in a war right now with the American people and even if you could, such a war would get out of control and as you put it, nukes can be delivered in less time it takes a pizza. We at least get 20 minutes warning, I feel sorry for the poor Brits, they are lucky they get 30 seconds or if lucky 4 minutes.

[sheik yerbouty]

His “Black and Tans”? This is not racial. The British brought in special non military troops, often from their prisons to terrorize civilians, whether they were mixed up with the IRA or not..

[RedHeeler]

You seem to be a bit smelly. Good luck.

[noinfringers2]

The Feds look well fed.

[alarm rider]

I agree with your post. As I watched some of the remembrance of the Boston bomber thing, I could not help thinking that it was in many aspects, a complete ruse. The people there are essentially disarmed. The city was driven to a complete standstill. The police raided homes, kept whole neighborhoods locked down and generally acted as the arm of a police state.

Meanwhile, the citizens went all rah-rah afterward with emotional events. I thought at the time, “wait, this is supposed to be America”, why are the residents of a large city acting like children and cowering in their homes and then celebrating the alleged freedom of the place. Made no sense to me and still does not.