DANGER!! Maybe something the left and right can agree on…….

Nestled awkwardly among the usual guff, the outrage website Salon this week took a welcome flyer and accorded space to something genuinely alarming. “A SWAT team,” the headline screamed, “blew a hole in my 2-year-old son.” For once, this wasn’t hyperbole.

The piece’s author, Alecia Phonesavanh, described what it felt like to be on the business end of an attack that was launched in error by police who believed a drug dealer to be living and operating in her house. They “threw a flashbang grenade inside,” she reported. It “landed in my son’s crib.” Now, her son is “covered in burns” and has “a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs.” So badly injured was he by the raid that he was “placed into a medically induced coma.” “They searched for drugs,” Phonesavanh confirmed, but they “never found any.” Nor, for that matter, did they find the person they were looking for. He doesn’t live there. “All of this,” she asks, “to find a small amount of drugs?”

Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway. The ACLU reported recently that SWAT teams in the United States conduct around 45,000 raids each year, only 7 percent of which have anything whatsoever to do with the hostage situations with which those teams were assembled to contend. Paramilitary operations, the ACLU concluded, are “happening in about 124 homes every day — or more likely every night” — and four in five of those are performed in order that authorities might “search homes, usually for drugs.” Such raids routinely involve “armored personnel carriers,” “military equipment like battering rams,” and “flashbang grenades.”

Were the military being used in such a manner, we would be rightly outraged. Why not here? Certainly this is not a legal matter. The principle of posse comitatus draws a valuable distinction between the national armed forces and parochial law enforcement, and one that all free people should greatly cherish. Still, it seems plain that the potential threat posed by a domestic standing army is not entirely blunted just because its units are controlled locally. To add the prefix “para” to a problem is not to make it go away, nor do legal distinctions change the nature of power. Over the past two decades, the federal government has happily sent weapons of war to local law enforcement, with nary a squeak from anyone involved with either political party. Are we comfortable with this?

The Right’s silence on the issue is vexing indeed, the admirable attempts of a few libertarians notwithstanding. Here, conservatives seem to be conflicted between their rightful predilection for law and order — an instinct that is based upon an accurate comprehension of human nature and an acknowledgment of the existence of evil — and a well-developed and wholly sensible fear of state power, predicated upon precisely the same thing. As of now, the former is rather dramatically winning out, leading conservatives to indulge — or at least tacitly to permit — excuses that they typically reject elsewhere. Much as the teachers’ unions invariably attempt to justify their “anything goes” contracts by pointing to the ends that they ostensibly serve (“Well you do want schools for the children or don’t you? Sign here”), the increasingly muscular behavior of local police departments is often shrugged off as a by-product of the need to fight crime. This, if left unchecked, is a recipe for precisely the sort of carte blanche that conservatives claim to fear.




10 thoughts on “DANGER!! Maybe something the left and right can agree on…….

  1. GMB

    The vast majority of MP’s I served with were not civilian police officers. Those that were were pretty much looked upon with scorn on a personal level. They were used to busting down doors with little or no resistance. They were used to superior firepower and superior numbers.

    They had to watched like a hawk. The smash mouth attitude they had played a very big role on the casualties that they took. They had to learn by doing. They had to learn by experiencing. It was not a pretty sight to watch these cops get shot up because of what amounted to big attitude problem.

    There is a big difference against going after poorly armed and unorganized civilians than there is against fighting people who are intent on killing you.

    They do not play by the rules these cops are used to.

    When the time comes, neither will we.

  2. GMB

    They have no morality what so ever. It has been removed from from the time of their birth. Usually raised by a Grand Mother with “mom” not around much and “baby’s daddy” not at all. They are taught that they have special snowflake status because of the color of their skin from the moment they enter a public school.

    Add that to the incessant progtardic indoctrination and you have a recipe for chimpism. To put it so those of you in rio progtardia can understand it, chimpism is merely a by product of progtardism.

    It is your world. Live in it I guess.

    The only small comfort that exists in this whole mess is that the pool of people who will allow themselves to labeled and victimized by progtardic behavior is shrinking. They turn against their own kind, progtards.

    The vast majority of victims of the “knock out game” are progtards. The vast majority of “chimp out” victims are also progtards.


  3. bardolf2

    Hello! Used this post to back up a discussion at BfV. I post way too many comments about the SWAT teams being used for everyday situations. OTOH, the demographics in some of the National Review comments/article were familiar to me.

    Unfortunately, it is a fact that a police officer is twice as like to commit suicide as be shot by a civilian. I try and tell Neoconehead that the moochers just don’t have the ambition to take his stuff but he doesn’t believe me!!!!

    1. GMB

      Dr. B, beg to differ. Taking is a lot easier than producing. When those that produce quit, what will the takers do? They will take from whoever that has.

      The producers are being squeezed, on purpose, between the twin anvils of taxation and inflation.

      It can not last. Not with fiat currency.

      1. neocon01 Post author

        I think it’s easier to produce something than to take something from Neo!

        Hmmmm maybe I should introduce baldork to the princess, and my boys…LOL

        did you sleep through the looting, burning, rampaging of every major US city in the last 5 decades? Believe me if the conditions are right they will come…think N.O.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s