La militarisation des forces policières (article anglais)

Mouvement ouvrier, droits des immigrants, immigrantes et réfugié-e-s, environnement, etc.

La militarisation des forces policières (article anglais)

Messagede BlacKGuarD le Jeu Jan 25, 2007 12:46 am

http://www.counterpunch.org /

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

In recent years American police forces have called out SWAT teams 40,000 or more times annually. Last year did you read in your newspaper or hear on TV news of 110 hostage or terrorist events each day? No. What then were the SWAT teams doing? They were serving routine warrants to people who posed no danger to the police or to the public.

Occasionally Washington think tanks produce reports that are not special pleading for donors. One such report is Radley Balko's "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" (Cato Institute, 2006).

This 100-page report is extremely important and should have been published as a book. SWAT teams (Special Weapons and Tactics) were once rare and used only for very dangerous situations, often involving hostages held by armed criminals. Today SWAT teams are deployed for routine police duties. In the US today, 75-80% of SWAT deployments are for warrant service.

In a high percentage of the cases, the SWAT teams forcefully enter the wrong address, resulting in death, injury, and trauma to perfectly innocent people. Occasionally, highly keyed-up police kill one another in the confusion caused by their stun grenades.

Mr. Balko reports that the use of paramilitary police units began in Los Angeles in the 1960s. The militarization of local police forces got a big boost from Attorney General Ed Meese's "war on drugs" during the Reagan administration. A National Security Decision Directive was issued that declared drugs to be a threat to US national security. In 1988 Congress ordered the National Guard into the domestic drug war. In 1994 the Department of Defense issued a memorandum authorizing the transfer of military equipment and technology to state and local police, and Congress created a program "to facilitate handing military gear over to civilian police agencies."

Today 17,000 local police forces are equipped with such military equipment as Blackhawk helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, battering rams, explosives, chemical sprays, body armor, night vision, rappelling gear and armored vehicles. Some have tanks. In 1999, the New York Times reported that a retired police chief in New Haven, Connecticut, told the newspaper, "I was offered tanks, bazookas, anything I wanted." Balklo reports that in 1997, for example, police departments received 1.2 million pieces of military equipment...
The wise fools who sit in the high places of justice fail to see that, in revolutionary times like the present, vital issues are settled, not by statutes, decrees and authorities, but in spite of them.
BlacKGuarD
Vétéran de la révolution à distance
 
Messages: 2021
Inscription: Lun Sep 12, 2005 6:57 pm

Messagede Éric-Son (Nyax) le Jeu Jan 25, 2007 10:18 am

c'est inquiétant, et pourtant assez prévisible, dans l'optique que les états-unis ont depuis un certain temps accéléré leur transformation vers un état policier autoritaire. Maintenant il faudrait s'habitué a voir débarquer l'armé (ou swat peu importe, quand les paramilitaires on des tank et des rockets, c l'armé) chaque foit qu'on est suspecter de quelquechose.

Je n'envie vraiment pas ceux qui vivent aux états, bientot c'est les états-uniens qui deverons se sauver au mexique (ou au canada) et pas le contraire, on pourrait même se demander à quoi sert vraiment ce (ces?) nouveaux murs au frontières.
Éric-Son (Nyax)
Apprenti-e militant-e geek
 
Messages: 40
Inscription: Jeu Sep 28, 2006 9:02 am
Localisation: FXGarneau

Messagede BlacKGuarD le Mar Avr 10, 2007 2:37 am

Je poursuis avec un article très intéressant sur la militarisation de l'État (notamment aux USA mais ici aussi, puisqu'on collabore activement: Vive Vichy! Vive Pétain!). La fameuse Terror Watch List, sur laquelle on ne devrait être mis qu'en cas de graves provocations face à l'ordre établi, hein? Que si on a quelque chose à se reprocher, que seulement là on a à craindre?

Sure.
Another Enemy of the People?

Mark Graber

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach."

Source: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/anot ... eople.html

Quand même. J'apprécie beaucoup les questions qu'on lui demande. Très pertinent comme article pour pourfendre du droitiste autoritaire.
The wise fools who sit in the high places of justice fail to see that, in revolutionary times like the present, vital issues are settled, not by statutes, decrees and authorities, but in spite of them.
BlacKGuarD
Vétéran de la révolution à distance
 
Messages: 2021
Inscription: Lun Sep 12, 2005 6:57 pm


Retourner vers Autres luttes progressistes

Qui est en ligne

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 1 invité

cron