(Professor/Instructor)
(Course/Major)
The US Constitution allows Congress the power to deploy the ‘militia’ with the objective of “executing the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” In addition, it ensures that the states are protected against aggression to overthrow the “republican government” and, upon the request of the state government, against civil disturbances. These constitutional tenets are seen in the 1807 Insurrection Act prior to and after the adoption of 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The latter bans the deliberate engagement of any component of the Army or the Air Force unless allowed by the ambit of Congress or in the tenets of the Constitution. Historical records will proffer that the Constitution expressly prohibits the involvement of the military in civilian matters unless allowed by a law passed by Congress or by the ambit of the President. Withal, the courts have been resistant to this interpretation unless it can be proven that there has been a more severe violation of the law or there is a more acerbic threat to the public good (Doyle, Elsea).
Over the past years, there has been an increasing shift, changing the operation and ‘battlefield’ of the military to that currently being done by the civilian police force. This trend was particularly evident in the 1980s and the 1990s in the course of the “War on Drugs” launched by the government. To be able to accommodate this operation, Congress amended the PCA to facilitate a higher level of collaboration between the military and the police. This initiative was fleshed out with the passage of the 1981 Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act. With Congress fueling the collaboration between the two agencies with regards to providing intelligence, equipping, and even materials and resources, the military involvement in law enforcement has been focused in developing task forces to counter the narcotics menace.
In time, the collaboration between the two entities increased and expanded beyond interdiction activities in the “War on Drugs” to include the implementation of trade and immigration policies and statutes. For example, the Army engaged its fleet of Blackhawk helicopters to pursue bootleggers as well as convey customs personnel. National Guard elements have assisted law enforcement in enforcing a wide array of laws including the inspection of cargoes and ships both at sea and in the nation’s ports. However, not all of these collaborations have been limited to non-conflict situations; in 1993, military units assisted law enforcement personnel during the barricade of Branch Davidian members in Waco, Texas. This effort was seen as the “single largest deployment of military weapons in a civilian law enforcement action.”
In the aftermath of the Waco incident, Congress conducted investigations into the use of military resources in law enforcement activities. By the end of the investigations, Congress determined that law enforcement should not engage military strategies and resources in carrying out its mandates. Withal, even with these rulings, the civilian law enforcement establishment continues to use military-oriented strategies in its work. Though the judiciary has discussed the impact of the involvement of military elements has on civilian rights, what has gone unnoticed is the small changes in the approaches and the agendas of civilian law enforcement that are drawn from the exposure of the police to military strategies and practices. This exposure has changed the character of the police, becoming dictatorial, integrated, and self-operating “units” that are insulated from the public eye. The result of these practices is an increasing paramilitary paradigm in police organizations in the United States (Kealy 385). The military establishment is premised on the operation of a tyrannical governance model, with no tolerance for dissent in direct contradiction of the operation of a democratic society. The military is designed to be isolated from the interference of “civilian society” and its chaos. In this regard, there are calls to restructure the involvement of the military in law enforcement to eliminate the engagement of all military units, and not only the Army and the Air Force. The military culture and lifestyle is ill-adopted to the tenets of due process and diversity, features that are integral to the democratic process (Kopel, Blackman).
This “militarization” has resulted in heavily armed police units invading people’s homes in the dead of night in search for narcotics. What is more disturbing is that a number of individuals have been needlessly killed in these interdictions and homes that have been destroyed in the course of that interdiction. It can be stated that American neighborhoods have been turned into war zones, with the police treating suspects and criminals as enemies on the battlefield. Substantial amounts of surplus military equipment and weapons are redirected into the arsenals of civilian law enforcement organizations. These extremely lethal weapons are not engaged in times of extreme civil disturbances or during times of chaos and anarchy in a society; these are used every day, particularly in waging the largely ineffective and wanton “War on Drugs (American Civil Liberties Union).
Police carrying assault rifles and in military gear and rolling into neighborhoods in heavily armored vehicles are not parts of entertainment shows-this is indicative of a rising trend towards the militarizing the police. Federal projects that redirect excess military materiel and resources and coupled with the purchases of the department, have given the police a level of firepower that is grossly inordinate to perform their mandates as the guardians of the community. By deploying a team of officers that are equipped like soldiers to perform police work, this can contribute to a quick degeneration of a situation and an escalation of the conflict can quickly rise to conflict and violence. Aside from the change in the common equipment that are used by the police, the shift was also attended by a corresponding change in the culture of the police establishment wherein the organization has assumed a “war footing” in its fight against criminal elements (American Civil Liberties Union).
In an attempt to reorient the police back to its original moorings, the Federal government has revoked its policy providing excess military articles such as grenade launchers and armored vehicles in the aftermath of police actions against protesters in Ferguson Missouri. In addition to these proscriptions, should the police look to acquire less lethal military equipment, these must still comply with stringent Federal monitoring and regulation policies. The police that have been oriented as if these are engaged in a war convey the message that rather than being the protectors of the community, the police are the occupying armies sent to destroy an enemy in the invaded country. By deploying the police with the military equipment and the attendant military thinking, citizens will feel threatened and afraid rather than secured. However, there are actions that are addressing these concerns.
One example of this effort is being done in Camden, New Jersey; the city accomplished this by increasing the number of the police force and deploying the officers into the neighborhoods and communities not to increase patrol activities, but to establish community links with basketball and other recreational activities as well as other trust and rapport generating activities with the community. In addition, the police is actively building links with the community by being involved in the business community as well as the schools. President Obama, in commenting on the gains achieved by this program, averred that there are initiatives within the Justice Department to forge a balance in terms of equipment acquisition and training needed by the police and implicit, straightforward processes designed to maximize the safety of the police officers and that of the community. The controversy was heightened when Ferguson police were deployed in full battle gear in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting. However, these allegations have been circulating since the World Trade Organization protests in 1999.
There are elements in Congress that have been extremely resistant to decrease the flow of military equipment to the police owing to the popularity of the program with a number of police departments. However, there are those also in the chamber that are challenging this policy directive and lauded the program President for this new policy, claiming that the militarization of the police has greatly contributed to cases of abuses in the use of force by police elements. Among the equipment being prohibited from being deployed into US neighborhoods include tanks and other similar armored units, vehicles and aircraft fitted with lethal weaponry and bullets and munitions larger than .50 caliber, as well as bayonets and grenade launchers. However, the new policies are expected to cause dissension among police organizations.
Aside from the required explanations, the police organizations are expected to enforce community policing programs that are a complete digression to the “zero tolerance” policies that have been in operation in the past. There are now calls on how to combine the two paradigms, combating threats to homeland security and at the same time conduct traditional policing tasks (Johnson). Military personnel can never assume the position of law enforcers; there must be an effort to redirect the police back to their original orientation as keepers of the peace; hence, the police must regain their culture of peacekeeping rather than instilling a new culture in combatting crime (Kopel, Blackman).
Works Cited
American Civil Liberties Union, “Police militarization” <https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/police-militarization
American Civil Liberties Union “War comes home: the excessive militarization of American policing” <https://www.aclu.org/feature/war-comes-home
Doyle, Charles, Elsea, Jennifer K., “The Posse Comitatus Act and related matters: the use of the military to execute civilian law.” <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf (2012)
Johnson, Alex, “Obama: US cracking down on ‘militarization of local police” <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-cracking-down-militarization-local-police-n360381
Kealy, Sean J. “Reexamining the Posse Comitatus Act: toward a right to civil law enforcement” Yale Law and Policy Review 21(2), 2003
Kopel, David B., Blackman, Paul M., “The Waco disaster and the militarization of American law enforcement” Akron Law Review 30, 1997, pp. 619-659 <http://www.davekopel.com/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm
