Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces
from the say-what-now? dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions bringing back the Defense Department's 1033 program, which helped militarize local police forces with surplus military equipment. We've been covering all sorts of problems with the 1033 program over the years, and people like Radley Balko have written entire books on the problem. And the previous ban on the 1033 only put a fairly narrow limit on the practice of militarizing police -- but now even those modest limits are gone.
What's truly incredible, however, is the complete nonsense being used to justify this. Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech about this on Monday, in which he trotted out his standard misleading and out-of-context stats, falsely claiming that there's some massive new crimewave across the country, when there's really just been a tiny bump after decades of decline in crime rates (the use of percentages by Sessions shows the he likely knows the absolute numbers are so meaningless that he has to mislead with percentages working off a small base).
But, even with the usual misleading claims about violence and violence directed towards police, I still never expected him to... point to Houston and the impact of Hurricane Harvey as a reason for increased police militarization. But that's exactly what he did:
Those restrictions went too far. We will not put superficial concerns above public safety. All you need to do is turn on a tv right now to see that for Houstonians this isn’t about appearances, its about getting the job done and getting everyone to safety.
Wait. Law enforcement in Houston needs surplus military equipment to rescue people? Last I've seen it's been tons of good hearted people using boats of all kinds going around and rescuing people. I don't see much need for military equipment.
Once again, this looks like law enforcement using "any means necessary" to justify getting their military surplus toys, despite tremendous evidence of how this process is abused, how it harms community relations and how it leads to civil rights of the public being violated. To point to the disaster in Houston as a reason for restarting the program is not just frivolous, it's dangerous.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1033, doj, hurricane harvey, jeff sessions, police, police militarization
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Military Equipment for Houston
No, they don't.
What about...
There is a massive need for military equipment in Houston. Operated by the military. Not by law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Giving some Military gear (Vests, small arms, etc) is ok.
Why do the cops need grenade launcher, 50Cal guns, Tanks, etc? This stuff needs to stay with the Military, and controlled by the Military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
We could give street cops Apache helicopters to "help", but they're kind of useless without *trained pilots*.
Giving them grenade launchers and tanks isn't any different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
There is a need for equipment. But it doesn't have to be military. There really are such things as non-military vehicles, aircraft and ships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
I can just imagine drownings averted, only to be replaced by shooting and beatings because someone was too anxious or looked too... whatever. Also, you are going to have to let go of that baby so i can frisk and cuff you before pulling you out of the water, as my perceived personal safety overrides anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Well, not to be rude, but fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Said the AC sitting around typing things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Knew?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
President Reagan - Mastermind (SNL)
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/20-best-saturday-night-live-political-sketches-w481607/pr esident-reagan-mastermind-12686-w481639
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the fire ants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the fire ants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
consider soap a foreign chemical to open water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
Palm Olive will do the same and be soft on their tiny little hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the fire ants?
I was wrong, they need all that equipment! ANT'S ARE TAKING OVER TEXAS!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the fire ants?
We don't want the military enforcing any ordinance and we don't want the police touching any ordnance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't build levees to combat 100 year storms, but we need equipment for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Law enforcement doesn't need military equipment. They want it, to compensate for other things, but they don't need it and it does nothing but generate the very "us vs. them" atmosphere they use to justify acquisition of the equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, it's the cars that serve and protect the police, dummy. It's spelled out so that the policemen don't catch a cold when they forget and stand unprotected in the rain.
It's like the "I can be hot" signs on their coffee machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The structural problems you've reference exacerbate the problems caused by high winds and ever-increasing rainfall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now storms ARE more powerful. I'm not a climate denier. But they aren't so much more powerful that it's overwhelming the provisions made to handle rain. As I mentioned before, it's the changes in the roads that causing the problems. I sat through Alicia, and there weren't major problems with flooding, but a decade later (and all the construction in the mean time) minor storms were causing severe flooding because of the changes made to the roads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
Oh. Maybe they did use HAARP... Need to fill those FEMA concentration camps somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
...to retaliate against Nature with the full surplus might of the United States military.
What, like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm1XUf6H_2w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One cop says it; how many are thinking it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They already have plenty of submersed vessels. Pity none of them were designed for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There were joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
You could argue whether military help in emergencies is good -- well, no, "let 'em drown" is untenable.
Let's stick to military equipment for police in daily use, then. ... Uh, why not? The actual use is all that matters, and while I agree that the trend of violent police is alarming, THAT is a separate problem. I'd also go along with the "have it will use" line, but that's still mostly separate problem. -- Of declining morals and unity under common law.
Anyway, there's NO need for the headline to bring in the phony R/D division in "politics", because fact is that the Ds are not actually resisting the tyranny, either.
Yet I do fully expect that some here will immediately start arguing fictional distinctions between the "two parties" of The Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
The headline:
So who exactly brought up the R/D thing now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure most of those people are responding to a request from the authorities for people with boats, not people doing it of their own initiative. That said, those boats aren't military equipment, so militarizing the police would not have kept them from needing to make the same request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you are wrong, but then what do I know?
Are you there? Have eye witness accounts? Have you watched the news - where they ask the people with boats about what they are doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a slap in the face to all those volunteers, suggesting that the only reason they are doing so is because they were somehow coerced or ordered to do so by "the authorities". F U!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
What's needed instead are exactly the kinds of resources that this administration wants to strip out of FEMA: simple, basic essentials that are relatively inexpensive and save lots of lives.
Let me give you a timely example. The Cajun Navy, bless their hearts, showed up in force in Houston to do whatever they could to supplement the hopelessly-overwhelmed local, state, and federal personnel. And now some of them are dead, because they didn't have lifejackets (PFDs). A minimal PFD for this kind of work costs about $100, a good one is about $250, a bulk order for several thousand would no doubt drive the price down.
No, it's not very cool and sexy and oh-gosh-look-at-the-pretend-soldiers, but it's a basic tool that keeps people alive in situations where they'd otherwise die. A quarter-million dollars worth of PFDs is chump change in comparison with the overall expense -- flying helicopters is REALLY expensive -- but it would yield value far beyond its price.
That's just one example. There are a lot of others, including swiftwater rescue training -- something that almost none of the Houston city personnel have had because there's no money for it. But SWR is essential for anyone trying to perform rescues in fast water, particularly in urban areas where there are all kinds of hazards under the surface. Two days of quality SWR instruction costs $250/student and is probably enough to keep them from dying while trying to keep other people from dying.
Harvey. Sandy. Katrina. This is the new normal. There will be another one. Soon. And money needs to be spent on basic gear and basic training before one of these turns into a multi-thousand person casualty event. So don't buy the cops AR-15's: buy them PFDs and SWR training. Those are FAR more likely to keep them alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
Looks like you didn't get the memo. Climate change is a Chinese conspiracy hoax and preparing against its consequences is prohibited to state and federal actors by decree.
You get the science you voted for. You thought science is not up for a vote? Think again. While it is not yet outlawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
“NOAA cuts target future polar weather satellites”, by Jeff Foust, Space News, May 8, 2017
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
“Senate Appropriators Reject Trump’s Cut to Weather Satellite Budget”, Doug Messier, Parabolic Arc, Aug 7, 2017
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
Quickly glancing through news just for the past week, Google's first result is a Newsweek article by Matthew Cooper, “Hurricane Harvey Looms, and So Do Trump Cuts to Weather Research” (Aug 24, 2017). While that article seems to provide an ok overview, be aware that some of the hyperlinks within it go to news from as long ago as last March.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
Yeah, we need more bombs but no more data about how we are fucking up the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
At times like this I think the Every Nation guy is right. We really should get on board with the Resist movement now and fight about our differences later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
I don't think the planet really cares one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weather satellite funding [was Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder...]
Additionally, government agencies waste so much money. If they wouldn't waste money, they could do more. The problem is they are governmental agencies, that is what they do. Cut their budget and they reduce their services, not cut their waste.
For the sandy relief bill, a canary in Alaska got $8 million. Alaska wasn't affected. That is why the Texas politicians voted against the bill.
Our government just can't resist wasting money, because it isn't theirs in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
The 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report “FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief” contains exactly one mention of “Alaska” (fn.22 on p.13), and zero mentions of “canary”.
Considering that in this context it's been widely noted that there's been some “Pinocchios” flying around — you should provide an authoritative citation for your assertion here.
Where's your cite for the “canary in Alaska got $8 million” ?
'Cause without a good cite, I'm gonna think you're just spreading birdshit around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA
348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service
100,000,000 for Head Start
50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS
45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft
22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment
50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services
24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund
10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief
4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service
3,000,000 for oil spill research
2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s leaky roofs.
1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA.
1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
It was $60 billion. So only $20 billion was pork. Gee, that makes me feel better.
Unless you don't believe those conservative Nazi's over at the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
These the same people who told you the porker about the “canary in Alaska” ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disaster relief funding [wa Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
Your long list here is not a citation for the “canary in Alaska” birdshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canary range [was Re: Re: Weather satellite funding]
Wikipedia: Atlantic Canary
Alaska, for the geographically challenged, is not in the eastern Atlantic. Rather, Alaska's coastline extends along the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.
Alaska is not tropical. It is cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
That is the problem, who pays for it? Why should someone in Maine see their tax dollars to go Houston because Texans decided they didn't want to be prepared? Why is that a federal issue? Shouldn't the people who will benefit be the one footing the bill?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sing songs and take care of one another, but you can always volunteer your help or send our own money as a donation, but that isn't the Feds job.
Perfect example is that Florida backs its own flood insurance program as no insurance company will provide it. Florida's flood insurance program is woefully underfunded (if it were a real insurance company, it wouldn't be allowed to operate, because it violates insurance regulations) and if a major storm hits the state of Florida will turn to the Federal govt. for help, because the money just isn't there.
Should someone in Iowa see their tax dollars to go help when Florida politicians willfully underfunded something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
You might as well be asking why someone who's house is not on fire should be forced to pay for the fire department that's trying to put out the fires in someone else's house.
Like it or not I can pretty much guarantee that you benefit from a system that spreads the costs out to make it a smaller burden on the individual, and while you may not benefit from it now by paying you ensure that should that change you aren't left in the dark scrambling to get the resources needed to get by/survive.
Be very careful with the idea that things like natural disasters and/or training for them isn't something that the government should be handling, because while you may not see a benefit now and think that it's unfair that you pay for the help/training someone else gets, that can easily be turned around on you, such that you find yourself in a situation where you need help and those around you are saying, "Why should I have to pay for them? Doing so doesn't benefit me, so why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
I don't necessarily agree with AC, but maybe a closer analogy would be whether people who live in fire-prone forests should be required to have extra fire insurance. Putting out someone's house when it's on fire - or helping with rescue, shelter and cleanup after a flood - is one thing. Subsidizing peoples' decision to live in a fire or flood prone area is something else. Why should I pay people to live in Houston, Miami, and New Orleans? Shouldn't the people living in those places bear the cost of buying insurance? If not, why not? It's probably not that simple since some people can't afford the insurance and don't have good options to move, but it seems likely that we won't be able to afford to just continue rebuilding cities as these disasters occur more and more frequently and get worse and worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
Because those particular areas would benefit from federal funds being spent on training and equipment that matches the likely issues that would crop up, just like another area might have different problems of their own that would require different training and/or equipment.
The problem as I see it is that the matter is being looked at too closely('Why am I, in state X, paying taxes to support someone in state Y?'), when pulling back a little more changes the framing and I feel leaves it making more sense.
'Federal taxes are spent on things that (theoretically) benefit the public at large according to their specific needs. Their state benefits more from certain funding which my taxes help pay for, whereas my state has different needs that their taxes help pay for.'
Looked at on a state level it can appear that certain people are being 'subsidized' for living in the 'wrong' area by people that live elsewhere, but if you look at it as a whole it's simply a matter of allocating resources where they're needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank god the police still have a few mortar rounds left from their last military hardware distribution, because that hurricane certainly is asking for it ... time to break out the military shit and exact revenge on that hurricane - you know ... to send a message to all hurricanes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gallup: Confidence In Police
The article above links AG Session's Aug 28 speech:
Gallup: “Confidence in Police Back at Historical Average” (July 10, 2017)
Further according to Gallup's “Confidence In Institutions” survey, in 2017, for “the police”:
About 1 in 7 out of the surveyed group have “very little” confidence in the police. Another 2 out of that 7 lack stellar confidence in the police.
Four out of seven people might be characterized, in AG Session's words, as a “vast majority”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Think that's probably the 1% in 2017 who — when asked, “a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little?” — they volunteered the response, “none”.
That column's unchanged from 2016, but down from the 2% recorded in 2015.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
What I'm 100% on is if the cop *does* feel like hurting me, he won't be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
BREAKING NEWS: “Cobb officer who said ‘we only shoot black people’ will be fired”, by Ernie Suggs and Rosalind Bentley, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Aug. 31, 2017 (“updated 3:58 p.m.”)
Earlier today from the AJC, “Cobb leaders address public over ‘we only shoot black people’ remark”, by Ben Brasch and Rosalind Bentley, Aug 31, 2017 (“updated 12:57 p.m.”)
Stepping back from the breaking news, and responding to your comment, police officers do occasionally get placed on administrative duty, and even fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
However, you may be right. There's nothing to stop him creeping back into an LEO job down the line. You know what's funny? I keep getting into arguments with Antifa supporters over their violence and the best they can come up with is that they're trying to prevent Hitler 2.0. What nobody seems to have noticed is that the Nazi problem isn't the prats with the torches and the awful haircuts marching in places like Charlottesville, it's horrible people like that Cobb County cop. They might not generally say it out loud but they're sure as hell thinking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Since many a true word is spoken in jest my comment stands: prats marching in costume aren't the problem, it's prats with power making throwaway comments like this. If all lives matter, that includes our brothers and sisters of colour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
People say a lot of stupid things, like the U. Penn professor who wrote that other cultures are inferior to Euro cultures. Or the kid who tweeted that she hopes she doesn't catch aids when she visits Africa.
Sometimes a joke or sarcastic comment is exactly that.
Of course, some positions are held to a higher standard and joking around or being sarcastic can and will get you fired, but I also think that people need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor, or at least learn to just ignore things sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
I can't "lighten up" over people being deliberately targeted and shot like vermin because they're the wrong colour. The Aurora shooter and the church mass murderer were captured alive. Why are their lives worth taking more care over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
You're sure it was a joke? Iow, you're confident they really do shoot white women, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Actually not even fired. Allowed to retire, with benefits. I wish my job was like that, and it's even more dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Heck, the way Trump talks up his electoral victory (with less than half of the votes) as "historic" and "unprecedented," less than half probably qualifies as a vast majority for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ever since Trump got the top job, his priorities seem to be to ensure that all his cronies in industry continue to keep their various enterprises going, even when people are dying because of them and to stomp on, not just the rights, the freedom and privacy of the people but on the people themselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As in
senior politicians?
or
senior voters?
or
Senior from Mexico?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical say one thing while believing something else
What he says: militarize police because of crime after a hurricane!
What he thinks: militarize police in order to stop hurricanes from making landfall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
Let's stick to military equipment for police in daily use, then. ... Uh, why not? The actual use is all that matters, and while I agree that the trend of violent police is alarming, THAT is a separate problem. I'd also go along with the "have it will use" line, but that's still mostly separate problem. -- Of declining morals and unity under common law.
Anyway, there's NO need for the headline to bring in the phony R/D division in "politics", because fact is that the Ds are not actually resisting the tyranny, either.
---
Yet I do fully expect that some here will immediately start arguing fictional distinctions between the "two parties" of The Establishment.
---
Went in "Moderation" about 10:10 Pacific... And I waited over an hour, no show. Is the "Free Speech Edition" of Techdirt off already? The notice is down. -- This comes from a session which used "Resend" to get through on 2nd try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
"cast it", and not found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
Sometimes it takes awhile. Just enjoy some classic Monty Python while you're waiting…
‘HELP! I'm being repressed !’
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why they need military gear.
Dead people don't need disaster help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont assist..
Dont do anything except..
HOLD a gun, sit in a tank, and POINT to the nearest exit..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define Surplus
Either way, Sessions is a dangerous person to have in this position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Surplus
It's a [nearly] perfect scam on the American taxpayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define Surplus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Surplus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sharknados will continue and we will need protection. Think of others for a change rather than what music you are going to steal next.
/s ... jic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Ds want to disarm the citizens.
You just gotta love being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For all the endless claims Republican made about Obama taking away everyone's guns, he never made any such attempt. Instead he signed an order that allows the carrying of firearms in national parks, reversing an order by Ronald Reagan that guns had to be kept in locked glove compartments. He signed an order allowing guns to be carried in checked luggage on Amtrak, reversing a ban that went into effect after 9/11. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has given Obama an “F” on every issue on which it graded him.
The few vague noises and gestures he made about background checks and keeping guns away from felons and the mentally ill merely duplicated what even the head of the NRA - and Bush II, McCain and Reagan - had called for in the past.
It was the same for Clinton. Constant screaming that he was going to take everyone's guns away Any Second Now. The closest that came to reality was the assault weapons ban, but even former Republican presidents Ford and Reagan called for it. Future President Trump too. And those who already had them could keep them.
It makes no difference who the next Democratic candidate is or what their policies are. Republicans will keep conning gullible inbreds with the same claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know, but licenses and background checks, one would think, might keep guns out of the wrong people's hands - you know, the one's we supposedly need guns to defend ourselves against. The ones who largely get guns from shady sellers* and stealing them from houses where they are unsecured.
*This was one of the things that the abused (and purposely implemented awfully by the private sector) Chokepoint was for, also, besides things like banks processing payments from outfits who illegally charged people's CCs and such.
Too bad Dems suck at their own (putative) thing as much as they suck at what their antagonists make up about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guarantee that the higher-ups in the NRA hate how Clinton lost. The usual “gubmint gon’ take yer guns” rhetoric that drives up gun sales never works under a Republican president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obama also sent that hurricane into Texas, we all know that Obama controls the weather - I read it on the internet so it must be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equipment needs training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurricane tactics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurricane tactics
Don't laugh too hard: nuking hurricanes was once presented as a serious proposal.
And the NOAA feels the need to have a page explaining why it's a bad idea.
Long story short, I expect the U.S. to start nuking hurricanes for next year's hurricane season.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hurricane tactics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow...what the hell???
Just another example of how the idiots in Washington have no %&*S('ing clue as to what is truly going on "on the ground" where people are helping people and Texas is showing what it means to be a good neighbor. And people from all over, even Kentucky, not just the Cajun Navy from LA have come to help. Saw a picture of an NYPD vehicle in one of the towns south of Houston yesterday. The country is doing it right to help. Sessions needs to shut up and GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know, they just don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Washington has become warped, perverted, unworkable.
It's way past time to take a broom to this filth -- starting with Sessions and Trump ..... ending with Bush 2, Obama and the Clintons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Washington has become warped, perverted, unworkable.
You know none of them are in office, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]