TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Friday, December 5, 2014
White House Review of Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition | Public Intelligence
White House Review of Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition | Public Intelligence
WHITE HOUSE
December 3, 2014
The following review of federal support programs for local law enforcement equipment acquisition wasreleased December 1, 2014 by the White House.
Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition
19 pages
December 2014
For decades, the federal government has provided billions of dollars in equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) through excess equipment transfers, asset forfeiture programs and federal grants. Particularly in the years since September 11, 2001, Congress and the Executive Branch have steadily increased spending and support for these programs, in light of legitimate concerns about the growing threat of terrorism, shrinking local budgets, and the relative ease with which some criminals are able to obtain high-powered weapons. These programs have significantly expanded over decades across multiple federal agencies without, at times, a commensurate growth in the infrastructure required to standardize procedures governing the flow of equipment from the federal government to LEAs. At the same time, training has not been institutionalized, specifically with respect to civil rights and civil liberties protections, or the safe use of equipment received through the federal government. Concerns over the lack of consistent protections have received renewed focus and attention in light of the recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.
The White House has engaged federal agencies, law enforcement stakeholders, civil rights stakeholders and academics in conducting a review of federal funding and programs that provide equipment to state and local LEAs. During the course of this review, White House components have explored whether existing federal programs: 1) provide LEAs with equipment that is appropriate to the needs of their communities, 2) ensure that LEAs are properly trained to employ the equipment they obtain, and 3) encourage LEAs to adopt organizational and operational practices and standards that prevent misuse/abuse of the equipment.
…
Between FY2009 and FY2014, the federal government provided nearly $18 billion dollars in funds and resources to support programs that provide equipment and tactical resources to state and local LEAs. LEAs can acquire equipment through various programs administered by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Treasury (Treasury), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).1 DOJ, DHS and ONDCP directly fund equipment purchases through multiple grant programs. DOD manages the transfer of excess equipment and also helps LEAs obtain new equipment at lower DOD prices. Additionally, DOJ and Treasury fund equipment purchases and other law enforcement activities through the equitable sharing component of the federal asset forfeiture programs. These programs, in the main, have been valuable and have provided state and local law enforcement with needed assistance as they carry out their critical missions in helping to keep the American people safe.
The bulk of the equipment transferred from federal sources to LEAs is fairly routine—office furniture, computers and other technological equipment, personal protective equipment and basic firearms. But federal agencies also transfer, or fund the purchase of, military equipment, including high powered weapons and tactical vehicles. Although such tactical equipment constitutes a small percentage of the total material that flows from the federal government to LEAs, it is nonetheless substantial. For example, under the DOD 1033 program, only 4% of the property provided to LEAs last year was “controlled property” (property listed on the Department of State Munitions Control List or Department of Commerce Control List). However, this 4% translates into 78,000 pieces of controlled equipment transferred from DOD to LEAs. To date, approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property are currently in the possession of LEAs across the country.
Despite the fact that federal equipment and purchasing programs generally share some of the same goals, each operates independently from the others and the policies and practices by which they are governed vary widely. When shared goals exist, it may be preferable to establish some common standards and practices. With respect to commonality, for instance, the lists of permissible equipment vary across programs, and each program employs different oversight and auditing procedures. They differ not only in the kind of reporting required by LEAs, but also in the frequency of reporting and level of detail required. These programs also vary in the type of training—if any—they require of LEAs. For example, the programs reviewed do not necessarily foster or require civil rights/civil liberties training and they generally lack mechanisms to hold LEAs accountable for the misuse or misapplication of equipment. This variation among federal agencies makes tracking the overall effects, use and misuse of federal or federally-funded equipment difficult.
Given the lack of consistency in how federal programs are structured, implemented and audited, and informed by conversations with stakeholders, four areas of further focus have emerged that could better ensure the appropriate use of federal programs to maximize the safety and security of police officers and the communities they serve: 1) Local Community Engagement, 2) Federal Coordination and Oversight, 3) Training Requirements, and 4) The Community Policing Model.
A. Local Community Engagement
Both law enforcement and civil rights stakeholders agreed that there is often insufficient transparency to decisions surrounding the acquisition of equipment. These programs often permit LEAs to request equipment outside of a local government’s standard budget process and without civilian (non-police) government approval. Local elected officials are frequently not involved in the decision-making, and the general public is similarly unaware of what their LEAs possess. As noted by some of the law enforcement stakeholders who contributed to this review, this lack of transparency can adversely impact neighboring LEAs in the event of an emergency when they do not know what resources may be nearby. Additionally, this lack of transparency can result in the proliferation of equipment in amounts that are often inconsistent with the size and training capacity of smaller LEAs.
B. Federal Coordination and Oversight
Federal programs for equipping LEAs lack interagency coordination and uniform standards. At present, these programs generally do not share data or reporting requirements for tracking inventory and use of equipment. Many do not monitor the transfer of equipment obtained with federal funds between LEAs. As a result, there may be no single entity in the federal government able to track particular pieces of equipment at any one time. This lack of coordination hinders attempts to hold LEAs accountable. Although some federal agencies have terminated or suspended LEAs found to be misusing funds or equipment or violating the Constitution, the impact of these penalties is likely weakened by the fact that the offending LEAs are easily able to draw from multiple other federal government sources.
C. Training Requirements
Federal programs supporting the acquisition of equipment by LEAs do not include standard training requirements for operation and deployment of equipment. Members of law enforcement cited the specific concern that police chiefs and those responsible for authorizing the deployment of military-style equipment often lack proper training to understand when and how controlled equipment is most appropriately deployed. It is possible that an increase in technology sharing, cross-training and increased operational relationships between LEAs and the military can foster an environment at the local level in which it is difficult to distinguish between the appropriate military use and the appropriate LEA use of the same equipment. Moreover, stakeholders expressed concern that some training programs may unintentionally incentivize the use of military-like tactics and equipment when unnecessary, and therefore, would benefit from appropriate training requirements attached to both the operation and the deployment of federal or federally-funded equipment that encourage improved policing practices.
D. The Community Policing Model
Some stakeholders who contributed to this review expressed concerns about an increasing trend toward militarism and militarization in United States policing, which can affect law enforcement culture, organization and operations. Some stakeholders felt that the “show of force” typically associated with military operations, when employed by civilian police, can weaken community trust—especially in communities with a history of strained relationships between the community and local law enforcement. Public safety and civil rights/civil liberties training may prove especially useful to strengthen community policing approaches that position law enforcement officials as trusted guardians of public safety.
Related Material From the Archive:
Federal Property and Equipment Manual: Federal Sources of Personal Property for Law Enforcement
DoD Issues Instructions on Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
White House Strategic Plan for Preventing Violent Extremism
Law Enforcement Agencies Obtaining Record Amount of Surplus Military Equipment
DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies
DoJ-DHS Pamphlet: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement at First Amendment Events
Defense Logistics Agency Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) Model Memorandum of Agreement
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Federal Support for Fusion Centers Report
Tags:Domestic Militarization White House
Cornel West: "Massive Transfer of Military Weapons to Local Police" During Obama's Reign | The Daily Sheeple
Cornel West: "Massive Transfer of Military Weapons to Local Police" During Obama's Reign | The Daily Sheeple
The Daily Sheeple
www.TheDailySheeple.com
December 5th, 2014
Even as police abuse against minority communities dominates national headlines, many have noted that police have been hardily armed for war under a controversial Pentagon surplus program (known as the DoD 1033 program).
It is as if America has descended rapidly into a warzone, as local authorities have been quietly (and with few details) given “surplus” military tanks & MRAPs, guns, weaponry (including grenade launchers), equipment and training to local police departments (and even schools).
But is this program necessary or even justified? And are we really surprised to see the American people now increasingly mistreated at the hands of police wielding this dangerously wrong-headed training and equipment?
For the outspoken Cornel West, the outrage in Ferguson is tied to the failures of the Obama Administration to address problems in the black community. West told CNN:
“I think Ferguson signifies the end of the age of Obama,” said West in an unapologetic CNN interview. “It’s a very sad end. We began with tremendous hope and we end with great despair … because we have a Jim Crow criminal-justice system that does not deliver justice for black and brown people, and especially black and brown poor people. It’s very sad that Wall Street executives can go free, drone droppers can go free, torturers can go free, but police who kill our precious children walk free …
“The sad thing is,” he continued, “we have a black president and a black attorney general, we have a black head of Homeland Security, but not one federal prosecution of a case against a policeman killing a black youth under the five-and-a-half years where we’ve had all black folk in place.”
More broadly, these military weapons signal that the police state is here in America in full force, and ready to repress populations of all colors, cultures and backgrounds under a variety of conditions – including martial law.
As the economy continues to put pressure on the middle and lower classes, tragic and outrageous incidents with increasingly armed and aggressive police are sure to continue and likely increase.
H/t MOX News
Resources:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces
Police State – Ten Secrets The Police Don’t Want You To Know! “How To Survive Police Encounters!”
Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality
The Anatomy of a Breakdown
Total Breakdown in Less Than 24 Hours
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/cornel-west-we-saw-a-massive-transfer-of-military-weapons-to-local-police-under-obama_122014#sthash.lkmauCZR.dpuf
Thursday, December 4, 2014
LOTFI: Rand Paul delivered the most incredibly bold Eric Garner statement | Ben Swann Truth In Media
LOTFI: Rand Paul delivered the most incredibly bold Eric Garner statement | Ben Swann Truth In Media
By: Michael Lotfi Dec 4, 2014
U.S. Senator Rand Paul delivers Eric Garner response on MSNBC
By Michael Lotf
NEW YORK, December 3, 2014– On Wednesday, a grand jury declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who was caught on video placing Eric Garner in a choke hold in July following accusations against Garner over alleged sales of loose cigarettes. U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R- Ky.), the leading 2016 White House GOP contender, delivered a statement that transcends party politics and cuts straight to the meat of why Eric Garner died. Paul is blaming his colleagues (rightfully so), and he’s the only one bold enough to do it.
By: Michael Lotfi Dec 4, 2014
U.S. Senator Rand Paul delivers Eric Garner response on MSNBC
By Michael Lotf
NEW YORK, December 3, 2014– On Wednesday, a grand jury declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who was caught on video placing Eric Garner in a choke hold in July following accusations against Garner over alleged sales of loose cigarettes. U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R- Ky.), the leading 2016 White House GOP contender, delivered a statement that transcends party politics and cuts straight to the meat of why Eric Garner died. Paul is blaming his colleagues (rightfully so), and he’s the only one bold enough to do it.
Not even liberals at Huffington Post can resist the conservatarian Paul right now. Many of them are even saying they’d vote for the Tea Party-centric Senator over Hillary Clinton.
Obama amnesty faces lawsuit as 17 states argue immigration order violates Constitution - Washington Times
Obama amnesty faces lawsuit as 17 states argue immigration order violates Constitution - Washington Times
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/3/obama-amnesty-faces-lawsuit-as-17-states-argue-imm/?page=3#ixzz3KwsBhpbb
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Seventeen states and governors sued the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday in a bid to halt President Obama’s new deportation amnesty, saying he violated the Constitution and broke federal laws by granting tentative legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
“This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution,” the governors said in a 75-page complaint, filed in federal district court in Texas.
The governors said they have standing to sue because they and their state taxpayers will be left on the hook for expenses related to schooling, health care and police to handle the extra illegal immigrants who will now have federal permission to stay in the U.S. despite having no permanent lawful status.
And the plaintiffs carefully chose the court where they filed their challenge, selecting Brownsville, Texas, where a judge last year wrote a scathing rebuke of Homeland Security for aiding human smugglers.
Mr. Obama’s unilateral immigration action, announced Nov. 20, would grant tentative status and work permits to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants, and would remove many others from any danger of deportation — though they would not have the same legal status as those officially granted the amnesty.
The policy provoked outrage among conservatives, immediately spurring Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio to sue the administration and the GOP states to organize a lawsuit.
In Congress, Republicans have searched for ways to use legislation to block the president. Most GOP lawmakers have settled for a three-pronged attack that delays the showdown until the new Congress convenes in January, when Republicans will have the added leverage of controlling both the House and Senate.
The GOP-run House is prepared to vote Thursday on a bill by Rep. Ted S. Yoho, Florida Republican, that would declare the president’s action void. But it won’t get a vote in the Democrat-run Senate, rendering it a symbolic gesture.
Next week the House is expected to take up a pair of bills designed to set the stage for an immigration duel next year.
An omnibus bill will fund most of the government for the rest of the fiscal year, avoiding a government shutdown when current spending expires Dec. 11. A separate short-term spending bill will keep the Department of Homeland Security open until early next year, when the budget battle over immigration will begin in earnest.
Conservative lawmakers, who want to take a stand now against the amnesty, balked at the plan. But GOP leaders remained confident the bill will pass, likely with help from Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has given the two-bill approach a green light as he prepares to close out his days atop the majority.
Under the setup, Mr. Obama could be confronted with legislation defunding his amnesty action and a likely veto battle with a GOP-run Congress before the end of January.
On Capitol Hill a small band of tea party conservatives rallied with like-minded lawmakers Wednesday, with calls to immediately defund Mr. Obama’s immigration moves.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a tea party champion and prospective 2016 presidential contender, urged fellow Republicans to keep the campaign promises that helped them win control of the Senate and a larger majority in the House.
“What I am here urging my fellow Republicans to do is very, very simple: Do what you said. Honor your commitment,” he told about two dozen demonstrators.
Still, Mr. Cruz avoided talk of a government shutdown.
Mr. Obama defended his move in remarks to a gathering of business leaders, saying he wanted to keep the amnesty in place even if he and the new Congress strike a deal on other immigration issues, such as increased border security.
“I am not going to preside over a system [where] we know these folks are in the kitchens of most restaurants in the country, are cleaning up most of the hotels that all of you stay in, that are doing the landscaping in most neighborhoods where you live, whose kids are going to school with our kids, and we tolerate it because it’s good for us economically to have cheap labor and services, but we never give them a path to be part of this country in a more full and fair way,” Mr. Obama told the Business Roundtable meeting in Washington.
“That’s just not who we are,” he said.
The new lawsuit, which was spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, repeatedly uses Mr. Obama’s own words against him, pointing to the nearly two dozen times he said he didn’t have the power to take the actions he took.
And in one critical attack, the lawsuit points to Mr. Obama’s own claim last week that he “took an action to change the law.”
“In this case, the president admitted that he ‘took an action to change the law.’ The defendants could hardly contend otherwise because a deferred action program with an acceptance rate that rounds to 100 percent is a de facto entitlement — one that even the president and OLC previously admitted would require a change to the law,” the challengers said in their complaint.
At the White House on Tuesday, press secretary Josh Earnest tried to walk back Mr. Obama’s law-changing comment, saying the president was trying to speak to the level of his audience in Chicago at the time.
“I think he was speaking colloquially,” Mr. Earnest said.
The spokesman went on to say that while the president didn’t change the law, his actions did change the way the law affects millions of people. “I think that’s what the president was alluding to,” Mr. Earnest said.
Legal analysts have heatedly debated whether Mr. Obama’s actions are legitimate, with the Justice Department saying that while it’s the biggest claim of prosecutorial discretion in history, the same moves were done on a smaller scale by previous Republican presidents.
However, it’s not even clear the courts will take the case. Judges have routinely rejected challenges to presidential actions by finding that plaintiffs can’t show a specific injury and thus don’t have standing to sue.
To combat that, Texas took pains to describe the increased spending for health care, licensing, policing and education.
The challengers also chose a Texas court where Judge Andrew S. Hanen last year blasted the Homeland Security Department for what he said amounted to aiding smugglers.
He said he’d come across several cases where illegal immigrant children had been smuggled into the U.S. and caught, only to have Homeland Security agents close the smuggling loop by delivering the children to their illegal immigrant parents already in the U.S.
“Instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it. A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct,” the judge wrote.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/3/obama-amnesty-faces-lawsuit-as-17-states-argue-imm/?page=3#ixzz3KwsBhpbb
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)