The events in Boston recently opened the eyes of many regarding the militarization of police. There Americans saw the tanks, armor, and automatic weapons and police units entering people's homes. The homeowners choice was submit or find out if that gun pointed at them is loaded, some choice. This has been going on for decades in the urban ghettos of the United States. The police have forgone community policing as a profession and embraced force as the first, last, and only option. Many did not believe this to be true until they saw the events in Boston.
At least Americans could rest easy that these were police and not some military forces crawling through our neighborhoods armed to the teeth and hunting for bear.
But not anymore.
With a wave of the wand also known as a pen our Foggy Bottom Friends now have decided that a Presidential order is no longer needed for armed military patrols on the streets of America. Not only can the Pentagon decide when and where to invade the streets of the United States, these troops in our midst will also be able to use information they obtain in their meanderings to report crimes for prosecution.
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:
Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Of course for many this is not news. And for the majority of Americans they will have no idea this is now permitted until they get troops in their yard to "inspect" for "terrorists*"
*at this point anyone can be designated a terrorist, so watch those parking tickets.