War In Our Streets

By: Eli Watkins

Armored personal carriers roll through the streets. Teams of people readily sport tactical body armor, assault weapons, and flash bang grenades. They upload pictures of their foreboding equipment and wide smiles onto the internet. This isn’t a description of Crimea; this is a description of police officers here in the United States.

Since 1997, the Department of Defense (DOD) has given away literal tons in weapons and military hardware to police departments.

The DOD does so through the Excess Property program, or 1033 program. Through this program, the federal government has distributed millions of dollars worth of military hardware–the kind of weapons designed to take down the Soviets and enable sophisticated counter terror operations–to agencies that are not remotely responsible for shooting down MiGs or hunting al-Qaeda.

The 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) “authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer excess Department of Defense personal property to federal, state and local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) with special emphasis given to counter drug and counter terrorism.” Every year, the federal government purchases a variety of equipment for military use. They buy it to wage wars, fight terrorists, defend contested territory, and protect the homeland in case of a real-life incarnation of the movie “Red Dawn.” However, given the ever-exorbitant levels of defense spending, the Pentagon has for some time had far too much equipment. So, the federal government does with assault weapons and armored personnel carriers what many people do with unwanted furniture: they give it away to people that can take it off their hands.

The program seems straightforward enough. Through contact with the appropriate coordinators, police can browse and request a range of specific military equipment including aircraft, tactical vehicles, and, of course, weapons. Officers can customize their requests to suit their preferences to a wide degree. On the M-16 for example, officers may request attachments well outnumbering the unlockable weapon attachments in the latest installment of “Call of Duty.”

Of course, the DOD does not satisfy all requests on a first-come, first-served basis. Some LEAs have to wait in the virtual line behind agencies in “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.” That is not to say the DOD does not go out of its way to serve program applicants. For officers that request equipment they do not know how to use properly or want to know more about, the DOD provides presentations and video guides online. They also have a toll-free number for assistance, and they offer training sessions on request. It appears that the federal government’s program of distributing weapons works quite well. But then again, they have had some practice.

Police departments across the country take advantage of this program. They request the equipment for its tactical advantages and because the opportunity to possess this caliber of equipment is exciting for weapons enthusiasts within the force. As Charles Ramsey, former D.C. police chief who moved to Philadelphia, said about the 1,500 odd Philadelphia police trained to use AR-15s, “Some people are very much into guns and so forth. So it wasn’t hard to find volunteers.” To be fair, driving around in a heavily armored vehicle or shooting an assault rifle is probably a lot more fun than typical police work. And it’s safe to say that anyone equipped with military hardware outside of a war zone feels safe to the point of invincibility.

According to a local report, the police department of Salinas, Calif. received a 37,000 pound, $650,000 armored truck formerly used by the military in both Iraq and Afghanistan free of charge. Detectives from the department asked for the DOD’s armored truck because they said the SWAT team’s old armored personnel carrier “was rusted and didn’t provide much protection.” Additionally, the report mentions the benefit of the new truck’s observation deck, which “gives officers a unique vantage point.” In this instance, the police claim a real, tactical use for a powerful military vehicle in the streets of their city.

Some police push back against the charges that they are militarizing. They claim they are with our dangerous society. Former Los Angeles police chief William Bratton said, “I don’t see us as militarizing police; I see us as keeping abreast with society… And we are a gun-crazy society.”

At the forefront of the fight against the militarization of domestic police forces is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They have catchy, simple slogans like “Towns don’t need tanks.” The ACLU continues to investigate the extent to which federal programs are blurring the difference between the capabilities of the military and the police. On their website, they cite example after example where overzealous police use of military hardware has led to tragic outcomes.

Those fighting the 1033 program have a living, breathing testament to irresponsible police use of military hardware at their disposal. His name is Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and he clearly embraces the use of military equipment in everyday policing. Sheriff Arpaio and his officers conduct raids eerily similar to the climactic fight in Brian De Palma’s “Scarface” for simple misdemeanor arrests on a semi-regular basis.

In 2004, a SWAT team from Sheriff Arpaio’s office donned flak jackets and helmets before firing tear gas canisters into a home, ultimately setting the house on fire and killing a 10-month-old pit bull. The operation netted the team an arrest for “a misdemeanor warrant for failing to appear in Tempe Municipal Court on a couple of traffic citations.” This incident is in no way atypical. Just this past September, Sheriff Arpaio, along with action star Steven Seagal, faced a lawsuit for driving a tank into the home of an Arizona man and allegedly killing the man’s puppy. Sometimes the truth is dumber than fiction.

The regular use of military equipment and tactics by Sheriff Arpaio and his officers may seem extreme, but they are far from alone in a military style approach to policing. In Florida, armed officers wearing masks have raided more than 50 barber shops to enforce licensing laws. In Indiana, a SWAT team fired tear gas canisters into the home of an 18-year-old woman in response to threats received traced back to her unprotected wi-fi. One of her neighbors allegedly posted threats through her home network without her knowledge. In Buffalo, New York, SWAT teams carried out 36 no-knock raids over three days in something they called “Operation Shock and Awe,” resulting in the seizure of .5 pounds of marijuana. Initiatives like the 1033 program enable, and even encourage, a military style approach to common law enforcement operations.

People are not against the 1033 program because they are against police safety. They are against it because they do not want the tools of warfare used in their own communities. When police have the potential to turn everyday neighborhoods into Fallujah, Iraq, circa 2006, then that just might become reality for an afternoon.

This is about more than potential destruction. It is also about police attitude. The job of the law enforcement is very different from that of a soldier. As civil liberty expert Radley Balko put it, “When you dress like a soldier, you’re predisposing yourself to start thinking like one.” Soldiers are supposed to fight against an enemy force. Police are supposed to enforce the laws of this country and protect people in the process. When law enforcement officers approach their job with a military mindset, armed with the weapons of war, they blur the line between the two distinct jobs.

Thanks to initiatives like the DOD’s Excess Property program, the police of the United States of America are prepared for war, or at least an apocalyptic outbreak of zombies. However, curtailment or elimination of these programs is part of a broader discussion. That discussion will require us all to assess the role we think police should play in our society. We have to ask ourselves if we want the police to have the capabilities to wage a war in our streets.

Well, do you?