Local Police or Occupying Army

[old hippie 56]

From Local Police to Occupying Army, or LESO: The Greater of Many Evils

by William Norman Grigg

There are Peacekeepers deployed in US cities, but they're not under UN command.

They're armored personnel carriers supplied to “local” police agencies for little or no cost through the Pentagon's Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), established in 1995 as part of the Defense Logistics Agency.

Since that time, the LESO has made huge amounts of military hardware – from boots to helmets to ammo to helicopters and the “Peacekeeper” APCs – available to local and state police agencies, often at little or no cost.

If you're interested in watching the Pentagon's promotional video for the LESO's campaign to militarize “local” police, go to the page maintained by the DLA. At the bottom of the links you'll find one leading to “LESO Get With The Program Video.” Follow that link, and – assuming you can withstand the barrage of really obnoxious whitebread canned pseudo-funk PSL music – you will have the entire program explained to you.

Fred Baille, a boileplater-spewing spokesdrone for the DLA's Distribution Realization Policy Directorate (a suitably Soviet title for a police-state agency), explains that through the LESO program, “local” law enforcement agencies can receive “excess” military gear of practically any description “as if they were a DoD organization.”

What this means, in practical and tangible terms, is that your local police has the same access to military hardware as any branch of the armed services. In everything but brand name, they're domestic appendages of the Pentagon.

The “Get With The Program” video demonstrates how easy it is for police agencies to snag the swag: Simply call up the LESO website, fill out a form “justifying” the order, and send it in. And getting “surplus” Pentagon equipment is depicted as a civic-minded thing to do, since getting the federally subsidized military gear actually helps keep taxes low.

Not discussed in the video are hidden costs of that subsidy. The monetary costs are borne by taxpayers nation-wide. But a much larger price is paid when communities no longer control their own police agencies.

When local police are supported by local tax funds, they are locally accountable. When those police are materially and financially supported by Washington – to any extent – the locus of control and accountability shifts there. That is the principle recognized in the Supreme Court's 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision.

The Bush Regime is trying to expand that principle in the case of Joshua Wolf, a videoblogger imprisoned on federal contempt charges last fall for refusing to surrender videotape sought by federal prosecutors.

The Feds claimed that Wolf's video contained footage of an attack by rioters on a San Francisco Police Department squad car during a July 2005 protest. Wolf maintained that he didn't have the footage sought by prosecutors – which allegedly showed the squad car being put on fire – and that under California's shield law, he didn't have to surrender the tape. The Feds countered that because the SFPD receives federal subsidies (for counter-narcotics and “homeland security” efforts, among other things), the damaged squad car is federal property, and so the matter belongs in federal court, where California's shield law doesn't apply.

That claim has yet to be resolved in the courts, but given that claims of this sort have been consistently vindicated since, oh, about 1937, the suspense isn't exactly killing me.

Which leaves us here:

Any police agency that receives so much as a particle of federal aid is no longer a local police force. It is, in principle, a federal army of occupation.

Yes, most policemen (including those seen in LESO's promotional video) are decent and honorable people who honestly believe that they are serving and protecting their communities. But the people who fund and control them are neither decent, nor honorable, and at a time of their choosing they can execute Order 66 (if you'll pardon the allusion) and turn that army against us.

For decades, since the Kennedy administration unveiled its Freedom From War program for UN-administered “general and complete disarmament,” many observers have wondered when the blue helmets of the UN “Peace Force” would be dispatched to disarm Americans and put down patriotic resistance. It's not impossible that such a scenario could eventually be played out, however unlikely it is at present.

People who focus on the UN as the source of the immediate threat, however, are preoccupied with the wrong threat vector.

Copyright © 2007 William Norman Grigg

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting article, thanks.

[Heretic.Ape.]

SWIM needs to get out of this country. It seems to be increasingly creeping toward fascism.

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

SWIM needs to get out of this country. It seems to be increasingly creeping toward fascism.

Yea but where would you go? Europe is falling to the same temptations albeit perhaps a bit slower. South America (most of which is the USAs puppet...) is really the only place thats actually getting better (as a region on a whole yes I know many indivual nations are getting better).

[Heretic.Ape.]

Well I guess we'll just have to all band together and buy an island and start our own state

[old hippie 56]

Wait till the new nationwide ID goes into effect.

[The Doors]

Or we can stay and fight instead of running away. The more we run, the more control they gain.

[Nagognog2]

Nah. The little fruit-loops would come crawling out of the woodwork and tell us fighting isn't politically-correct* and guns are evil. And Jesus wants us to sing happy songs on our way into the microwave-ovens that seat 48.

Fascism arrived several years ago. Too bad you slept through it, but that was the plan. Better find the high ground some of us took over some years back.


* political-correctness climbed out of a think-tank in Langley, Virginia as a replacement for LSD. Keeps people off-balance and confused about whether they should be thinking certain thoughts. Musn't think that! Nazi's are people too! So forth.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Nag, I'm interested in where you place the arrival of fascsism "some years back". Are you referring to something specific, some general point of constitutional degradation that you interpret as this arrival, or what? Also what definition of fascism is it which parameters have been fully met? I'm also curious about what you mean by "high ground". This whole issue has been on my mind for a few years as I've been watching the whole post 9/11 insanity.
You'll have to excuse me if I slept through anything prior to that as I was rather young and didn't think much about the state of the world.

[Nagognog2]

I personally (we all have the equivalent of the "Doomsday Clock" for this) drop my finger on the calendar on a few events.

1. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that propelled us into Vietnam, even though it was known to be fabricated.

2. The creation of House Committee on Un-American Activities - and the freedom given to law-enforcement agencies to spy, lie, and set-up citizens at will with no possibility of charges filed/culprits brought to justice.

3. The illegal funding of a terrorist-army in Central America from an office in the basement of the Reagan White House including illegal arms-sales to enemy nations and smuggling illegal drugs into the United States by CIA operatives. No real punishment despite disclosure.

4. Many other glaring examples of lawlessness - but all tracking back to a single causitive rationale: To aid the bottom-line of United States' based corporations.

This is the consummate definition of fascism: "The marriage of government with big-business." Franklin Delanore Roosevelt.

Though re-printed in another thread, I'll risk posting this again due to it's extreme importance to those who give a damn. This is an intro to an important book I believe should be mandatory reading for all students:

Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry
Spring 2003
5-11-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


They Thought They Were Free

By Milton Mayer
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_Th..._Free_nn4.html

"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945",
University of Chicago Press. Reissued in paperback, April, 1981.


<edit> "High Ground" - areas within a nation that are likely to resist and continue to resist regardless of threat level against them.

Reputation Comments on this post:

You are free, to do as we tell you!

[Shiacmkmleer]

^^ I like it... only... Wait I see 12 (13 maybe even 14) of those in the USA

[Donmeka]

very nice post nag, im going to find that book and purchase it for sure seems like a very good read and a great learning experience for SWIM for he has not jumped into this type of topic much in the past

[Heretic.Ape.]

Thanks for the thorough reply Nag. I wrote a paper on the deterioration of the US into a fascist state and used Britt's characteristics of fascism in my argument, mainly in relation to post 9/11 policy and actions. The paper was actually proposing that the US is an oligarchy on its way to fascism and focused primarily on the deterioration of checks and balances (too much unchecked power in executive), the military-industrial complex, corrupt lobbying practices and the marriage of gov't with big business, and election fraud. If anyone is interested I could post either the paper or, since it's kind of long, just the citations for those interested in researching this important subject. I posted the citations once but the format got all messed up in posting so I asked the mods to delete it since I was unable to edit at that time.

[Police Officer]

Local Police or Occupying Army is a rediculous headder for this thread. It should be titled small town America is saved millions by donations from the U.S. Military.

Dont like the donations? I would suggest complaining about it. Then when your local bank gets robbed and the Police arent prepared for it and they get away...cool then. Have fun living with those people in your community.

Or of course you and me, the taxpayer, can pay for the gear that the Police, Firefighters, EMT's, and such need.

Dont be lemmings and automatically assume something is bad because of a suggestive headline. Think for yourself. Remember, dont be a lemming.

Now I'm in edit mode. I was just curious. How many of you actually understand what the program is designed to do, or is all about? Before a post was made did you do ANY type of research? If your answer was "Uh...Well I read the article in the thread." then I think you're in trouble.

[old hippie 56]

Yes Mr. PO, swim understands what the program does.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Now I'm in edit mode. I was just curious. How many of you actually understand what the program is designed to do, or is all about? Before a post was made did you do ANY type of research? If your answer was "Uh...Well I read the article in the thread." then I think you're in trouble.

Funny. Thats exactly how I feel about every single person (and there are quite a few of them) who read an article about the evils of drugs and the glorious successes of drug prohibition and take it as is without any further research.

[Nagognog2]

I think Porky is missing the point. That being that by accepting donations, the people are giving up fundemental Constitutional rights blindly. No one here is arguing they'd like to see the town bank get knocked over (though the FDIC would cover the immediate loss), but rather they don't want to be "occupied" by federal troops taking orders from Washington.

Blindly accepting such Federal occupation is an excellent example of being a lemming.

As an aside, I've witnessed a police agency placed under house-arrest by the Federal government when they got too close to identifying the people who were behind a major cocaine-smuggling enterprise. The very people smuggling the drugs WERE agents of the Federal government. Now let's hear our esteemed PO say this could never happen! Maybe not in the Midwest - but it does happen. I was there. And I interviewed the local police cheif.

Reputation Comments on this post:

MOD should set an example,calling a member a insulting name is wrong

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

I think Porky is missing the point. That being that by accepting donations, the people are giving up fundemental Constitutional rights blindly. No one here is arguing they'd like to see the town bank get knocked over (though the FDIC would cover the immediate loss), but rather they don't want to be "occupied" by federal troops taking orders from Washington.

Blindly accepting such Federal occupation is an excellent example of being a lemming.

WHAT!!?? lol How does when a local PD accepts handouts (leftovers and secondhands) from the FED Govt constitute reliquishing Constitutional rights? It's not the FDIC I would be worried about, it would be having to live with armed and dangerous criminals.

I am not sure where the term or theory of occupation is coming from. I went to the website and did a little reading. This is a "no strings attached" type of deal. Where is the notion coming from that whoever accepts the handouts will then be taking orders from Washington?

In no way is it "federal occupation" when a local PD accepts handouts. I'm having trouble understand your point of view, and where you are coming from. If there is something I missed in regards to the program then please let me know. A link would also be helpful.

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

Yes Mr. PO, swim understands what the program does.

I know, I was mainly responding to the other posts.

[lulz]

Matter of time.

[old hippie 56]

Armed and dangerous criminals are more predictable than cops. Just ask the family of that old woman in Atlanta.
But, back on subject, why does a police force need APCs, and other hardware?

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

But, back on subject, why does a police force need APCs, and other hardware?

To best illustrate this I would suggest watching something like Dallas SWAT. I almost feel like smacking myself for telling someone to reference anything on TV for information.

If you have to respond to a dangerous situation you have to be protected all around. I dont mean to be a smart ass, but life is nothing like the video games. One Police Officer, one Cop, one Good Guy who gets shot is unacceptable. One loss is never OK. That means for the bad guys too. APC's are ways to safely separate the good and bad guys, and to make it to where the good guys can get close to the bad guys. Negotiators also commonly ride in the APC's and get close enough for throw phones and bullhorns. There's alot more reasons, but those are some of the basics.

As far as what the "other hardware" is for, just be a little more specific about what you're talking about and I would more than happy to explain its uses. We have alot of neat gear, and all of it is very useful.

[Bajeda]

I think all the military surplus assault rifles provided to little ass police stations is a bit extreme. Useful? Maybe. Overdoing it? Definitely.

Reputation Comments on this post:

gooog

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I think all the military surplus assault rifles provided to little ass police stations is a bit extreme. Useful? Maybe. Overdoing it? Definitely.

Overdoing it? Never.

Anywhere there is the posiblity of an armed event it just makes sense to me, and to the Police in general, to be armed in an overpowering capacity. Why would it be even close to acceptable to have the Police in a shootout and not be better armed and equiped. You have to keep in mind that although the Police are a drug users biggest adversary, they are also the plug that keeps the dam from bursting. Put the Cops back in buggys with six shooters in their holsters and you are inviting bad elements to chalenge.

If you live in small town Amercia, say a town with 20k people, and you have a Police Department who is professionally trained and equiped, then you should feel safer that a community that is ill equiped. If you dont feel safe then I would suggest that there may be "other" reasons why you dont.

[lulz]

It would end up being cheaper if the goverment just dug everybody a moat, and gave everyone genetically engineered sharkes with fuckin laser beams coming out of their heads.




It would be the end of burglary for one thing.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by lulz

It would end up being cheaper if the goverment just dug everybody a moat, and gave everyone genetically engineered sharkes with fuckin laser beams coming out of their heads.

It would be the end of burglary for one thing.

Excellent idea. How do we implement?

Reputation Comments on this post:

nice

[Alicia]

well an example of why police forces use assault rifles i.e sig sauer 500 series or the m16 is occasionally that the crims they encounter also have assault rifles that cover more range then a typical hk mp5 submachine gun 9mm which has a much smaller range then say ak47 which can shoot 5.56 mm rounds.