Are we moving towards a police state?  More about a militarized police

Posted by on

Assertions have been made that there is a new nationwide crime wave and a hate campaign against the police in America; that the police fear the next video purporting to illustrate police brutality; that they have been stripped of the equipment they need to defend themselves, and are being treated as if they, not the criminals, are the enemy.

This is nonsense. There is no “War on the Police”.  Violent attacks against police officers remain at historic lows, even though approximately 1,000 people have been killed nationwide by the police last year (only 54 officers have been prosecuted nationwide, despite this fact). What is happening is that there is a modest push for sensible law enforcement reforms from groups as diverse as Campaign Zero, Koch industries, the Cato Institute, the Leadership Conference, Cato Institute and ACLU.  Unfortunately, as the rhetoric ratchets up, some police agencies are increasingly resistant to any reforms at all, forgetting whom they serve, ignoring constitutional limits on what they can do, and even denying the idea that they should be under civilian control.

Reforms suggested are independent investigation of police violence, demilitarizing police forces, or ending “for-profit policing”. But meanwhile in 14 states police officers have been given special legal protection against indictment, a “super presumption of innocence” that removes the threat of disciplinary action, and gives them special privileges when interrogated. There is one law for the police and another law for us, and a belief among some that American civil rights and liberties are actually an impediment to public safety. (Extracted from “The Logic of the Police State”, Mathew Harwood).

Taken along with Trumpism, a military contemptuous of civilian control, and a frightening coarsening of the general culture, the trajectory of public life in the United States does not look promising.

A militarized police force

Posted by on

When it comes to the arming of the police in a country in which rural sheriffs proudly sport battlefield-grade mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, and urban police units in New York City are being outfitted with Colt M4 semiautomatic assault rifles and machine guns, a report that 20 campus cops at Boston’s Northeastern University are going to be armed with semiautomatic rifles qualifies as sort-of normal. American police have been up-arming with a kind of passion since 9/11. Americans are now so over-weaponized that it seems as if both the police and the citizenry are in an undeclared arms race.

The militarization of the police has taken place amid an upsurge of protest over police brutality, abuses, and the endless killing of young black men, as well as a parallel growth in both the powers of and the protections afforded to police officers. All this could easily add up to the building blocks for a developing police-state frame of mind. The national news has been dominated by panic and hysteria over domestic terrorism. Add to that the Republican debate over “national security,” which turns out to mean “ISIS” and immigration, and it seems the way is being paved for institutionalizing a new kind of policing in this country in the name of American security and fear. (Tom Despatch)

I don’t think I will see it, but I believe that by the middle of the century, if nothing is done, the Disunited States will fall into violence, fueled by the 300 million guns, cynical politicians and sinking incomes. With that will come a police state and any pretense of democracy will fade away. Already the rule of fear is setting us on track for just the above, fueled by the current election campaign. Needless to say, it is utter anathema to every known tenet of Epicureanism. Unfortunately, an insufficient number of people seem to care. In an “exceptional” country, built on the rule of law, facism couldn’t take hold – or could it?

Thought for the day

Posted by on

“Taxation should not be perceived as something that is taken away from us but something that we collectively receive – a healthier, safer, far more decent and sustainable society”.

(A sentence from a letter to The Guardian from Mr. Greg Boyd, of Townsville, Queensland)

Calm common sense

Posted by on

The following quote about the Islamic State (equally applicable to other terrorist organizations) from President Obama’s interview on NPR on last Christmas should be given more publicity:

“This is not an organization that can destroy the United States……But they can hurt us and they can hurt our people and our families. And so I can understand why people are worried. The worst damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are.”

We should be grateful for this calm, rational approach in these tumultuous and troubling times.

Assisted death

Posted by on

The religious groups and disability rights advocates who oppose assisted death are concerned that elderly and disabled people, especially those who are low-income, could be pressured into taking the drugs in order to end or avoid expensive, life-sustaining care. They fear the protections suggested would not overcome the temptation of those hoping for legacies, and that family members or other heirs could slip the drugs to the patient without their knowledge or consent.  

“Legislation effectively paints a target on the back of each and every elderly and disabled person in our state,” said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, paraphrasing an elder abuse advocate. “The promises and assurances of the safeguards and protections from the representatives of those in favor are based in innocent ignorance.”  (NPR 2015)

He has a point, but the other way of looking at it is that it is cruel to keep alive an elderly person with an incurable disease, and who wants to end his or her life, and that that life belongs to the elderly person and to no one else.  Sensible rules specify that two doctors have to agree to an assisted death, and that their decision has to be reviewed and agreed to by a third doctor who has had nothing directly to do with the case.  The possibility of “influencing” three doctors are slim.  Faced with an old population whose members are increasingly going to live past 100, one has to ask the question, “yes, but with what quality of life?”. I hope and pray that, if and when it comes to my turn my wishes will be respected, notwithstanding the horrible decision that others have to make.