The entire Democratic leadership opposed Grayson amendment to stop arming cops with DOD weapons

[Report1212]

Something to think about:

As protesters around the country march in solidarity with the people of Ferguson, Missouri, politicians and the media are suddenly railing against the long-developing militarization of the American police force. But a revealing vote this past June shows just how uphill the battle is to stop the trend of turning police into soldiers. On June 19, progressive House Democrat Alan Grayson (FL) offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would block the “transfer” of “aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles” from the Department of Defense to state and local police forces.

The amendment attracted the support of only 62 members, while 355 voted against it (14 didn’t vote). Included among those voting against it was Rep. William Lacy Clay (D), who represents Ferguson. Clay was joined by every senior member of the Democratic Party leadership team, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (CA), Steny Hoyer (MD), and Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (SC). Democrats did form the bulk of support for the amendment (with 43 votes in favor), with 19 Republicans supporting as well—led by libertarian-conservative Rep. Justin Amash (MI), who lamented that “military-grade equipment . . . shouldn’t be used on the street by state and local police” on his Facebook page.

Read more: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/militarization-police-force-ferguson-congress

[chrisstopher]

1. Big brother carries a big stick.

[billhicks76]

119. If You Dont Think Grayson Can Win

Then your part of the problem and just a follower. The leadership should be scared. They are just parasite fat cats who happen to be Democrats. We need some faith and should purge them.

[conservaphobe]

2. Hopefully they don't repeat the same mistake next time. nt

[calimary]

5. They BETTER NOT repeat the same mistake next time.

They BETTER NOT repeat the same mistake now. Or EVER. SHAME on them!!!!!

[conservaphobe]

8. It wasn't much of an issue at the time.

So they took the easy way out.

This time we need to make sure the easy way out is to vote in favor of such a bill or amendment.

[calimary]

12. Well, it damn well BETTER BE an issue this time.

And from NOW ON.

This isn't downtown Baghdad forcryingoutloud!!!!!

I wonder, too, how many female officers there were in Ferguson, and if so, whether there were any suited up like Seal Team 6, hanging off that armored war tank.

[derby378]

63. Amen to that

[truedelphi]

109. These armored vehicles have a price tag of $ 370,000

Someone got me riled up about these vehicles back in May of 2013.

67 counties in California have either purchased outright, or been "gifted" these items.

http://www.marinij.com/ci_22575612/marin-buy-370-000-armored-truck-terrorism-strike

Marin County is quite affluent, but the roads there are in perpetual grid lock. The only way this kind of vehicle would be able to get to where it was needed, let's say in the event of a hostage taking, would be to have the damn thing airlifted there!

My county is rather poor, with 18% of the population either working part time at low wage jobs or else totally unemployed.

But my county was gifted the damn vehicle!

Meanwhile people scrambled to get the $ 40,000 that was needed to keep open the swimming pool open in Lakeport, our County's largest city.

[maddiemom]

130. All the way on the east coast, I feel for you! We don't usually identify Marin County as anything

other than very affluent. Too bad that we all do not have enough time and interest to pay attention to what is REALLY happening around the rest of the country.

[Vots]

21. ...

It's worth noting that the Republicans that voted in favor, were part of the Liberty Caucus. It's the libertarian wing of the House led by Chairman Justin Amash.

If it came up for a vote again, do you think the Dems plus the libertarians would be enough to pass it?

[JoeyT]

125. Possibly. If nearly all the Dems voted in favor.

If Louie Gohmert votes in favor of it, I'll take his goofy ass in support of it, if that's what it takes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. Oh, it was an issue, but the yellow stripe down so many Dems'

backs is so wide, when it comes to all things military (god forbid they be deemed peace lovers) that rational behavior has ceased to exist in the U. S. house of reptiles.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. We need strong police forces...

to protect congresses real bosses from the masses.

[Dustlawyer]

132. It was more kissing campaign contributions from the MIC and police support good-bye than

anything else. We need to get rid of campaign contributions! Publicly Funded elections is what we must have to stop this kind of corruption!

[Vincardog]

135. ++++999,999

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Shame?

What is this "shame" of which you speak?

[calimary]

43. I say shame on them for going to this dark place.

When was there justification for outfitting municipal police departments with these kinds of war toys? Is this downtown Baghdad? Are these the lawless wilds of Afghanistan? When? Are our municipal police departments supposed to be outfitted like Imperial Stormtroopers? "Protect and serve" calls for this? Where are the IEDs here in this country? Where are the bomb-throwers and the uber-armed? Well - I might understand using this kind of equipment for the police who have to face the cliven bundy crowd. But I haven't seen a single sniper among the crowds in Ferguson. Never have seen ANY of the protesters there hunkered down in war-position aiming their high-powered rifles and assault weapons at any peace officers. I haven't seen anyone in those Ferguson protests armed - AT ALL. Except for a few rocks and bottles. It's ridiculous overkill. And there's no place for any of those war toys in our suburbs! There's no reason for it. Then OR now. Especially the way it's structured, where the Pentagon can simply stovepipe those war toys down to local precincts. WTF??? There's no reason whatsoever for any local constabulary to have such equipment at their disposal. Lizz Brown was correct. "Boys and their toys." And I've seen that mentality too often. You make these toys available, the kids are gonna want to play with them. You give them a hammer and everything they see turns into a nail. That is the mentality we should be enabling in our local police? YES. SHAME. SHAME ON THEM for going there.

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Mary, I think you misread my meaning.

[calimary]

139. Oh, probably...

[cui bono]

72. That's so generous of you to call it a "mistake".

They know exactly what they're doing and where their bread is buttered.

[woo me with science]

137. +1

[joeybee12]

3. When the people lead, the leaders will follow...

A politician rarely does the right thing, he/she does the safe thing...it will now be deemed safe to support bills like Grayson's because the people are catching on...

[RKP5637]

7. Most politicians blow with the wind no matter which party. Seldom are politicians that have the

guts to stand up for what is right. And many flow with the $$$$$'s. Quite pathetic and sad.

[joeybee12]

11. I agree...sadly...nt

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Most politicians are vitally interested in performing their principal function, which is

(in the words of James Madison) "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

Note that the militarization of the police is occurring in parallel with the rise of an "opulent minority" of hereditary oligarchs. This is not a coincidence.

The current game seems to involve playing the fears and resentments of black people that are held by many whites, particularly those of the lower socioeconomic strata, so that they will accept the proverbial iron fist as being in their own interest. The Bearcats and rubber bullets are there to protect them from the dark-skinned horde.

It has always been in the interest of the rich to keep the commoner divided among themselves. J.P Morgan put it very bluntly when he said that he could alway hire half of the lower class to kill off the other half.

[RKP5637]

49. Exactly! Well Said! Thanks!

[ancianita]

143. Grayson likely referred to Madison when he claimed "...one might venture to say that the weapons

are often used by a majority to terrorize a minority..." implying that weapons use in a civilian world upends founding principles.

[Volaris]

131. That's why the money has to start coming from us...

Instead of from the lobbying firms and the corporations that stovepipe the $$$ for them.
We won't get anything useful done in our country until we get Publicly-funded elections. And yes, I WILL raise my own taxes to see it done, it's that important.

[840high]

153. ...^ that

[razorman]

4. I find it interesting that this is one of very few issues that seem

to be uniting both Left and Right. RW'ers have been bitching about militarization of police ever since Ruby Ridge and Waco. It has been a problem in the cities for a long time, but just now being noticed by the general public.

[99th_Monkey]

15. +10 nt

[RufusTFirefly]

25. RWers support it. Therefore, even if it's right, we must oppose it

The PTB are desperately hoping that left and right don't ally on these issues and will be doing everything possible to drive a wedge. You don't have to go very far to encounter these efforts.

A special shout out to the binary thinkers: Just because you agree with a right-wing politician on one issue doesn't mean you have to buy into his entire agenda. Nor is it true that because he's Right that he's always going to be wrong.

Reminds me of people who suggested that those of us who vehemently opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq were somehow supporters of Saddam Hussein.

Frankly, I find it pathetic and embarrassing that there aren't more people on our side of the political spectrum speaking out on these issues.

[redqueen]

36. " Democrats did form the bulk of support for the amendment "

And the amendment was proposed by a Dem too.

Frankly, I find it wholly unsurprising that most pols get in line when the MIC says to.

[Jackpine Radical]

47. Well, specifically, the libertarian quadrants of the political map.

Here's what I'm talking about;;



http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[truedelphi]

110. Since most RW'ers and most of us LW'ers are in the same part of the

Lower 95%, it is essential that we quit trying to maintain The Divide, and instead try to unite on the important issues.

The Divide has been carefully created by the One Percent, and keeping up that One Percent-created schism is exactly what keeps the One Percent in control.

[razorman]

171. I agree. There are a few issues on which we can find agreement, I think.

Militarized cops might be one of those issues, because it is something any of us might encounter. Also, I do not automatically assume someone is evil or badly motivated just because they happen to be conservative. I'm too old for that shit, and life is too short to spend it pissed off. Not sure I understand where Libertarians are coming from, though. That being said, disagreeing with me does not make you evil. It merely makes you wrong.

[Blue_Tires]

177. You're conflating a few different issues

At least RR and Waco had honest-to-god criminals involved...

The black community is pissed about decades of innocent people minding their own business ending up dead...

I'll believe there is some "unity" when I actually SEE the political right in Ferguson and protesting...

[razorman]

179. You are right that the issues are very different, although I do not believe

I was conflating them. My point was that people on the right and left would disagree on who the criminals are, we both agree that police overreaction occurs. Both sides seem to be leery of police outfitting themselves as military.

[onecaliberal]

6. When we keep voting for people

Who do not share our values and do not represent us, this is where we end up. That's why we don't need dems who act like cons for the sake of a dem winning a seat when they vote with the cons most of the time.

[Scuba]

9. There's a typo in your title. I'm suspect you meant "Democratic" leadership.

[jwirr]

10. It is time for the entire Democratic leadership to change their mind - they have no right to arm the

local police to fight a war with the citizens of the USA.

[JEFF9K]

13. "Militarization" is a buzz word.

Giving our safety forces new tools to do their jobs is a GOOD thing.

Getting them at a discount, or free, is even better.

With new threats, like domestic terrorism and better-armed criminals, I have no problem with this "militarization" of safety forces.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. LOL....... you forgot the sarcasm meme

or your fascist manifesto.

[JEFF9K]

29. You sound like an all-or-nothing conservative.

"Militarization" can be used in a manner that is entirely DEFENSIVE! Why "dumb" an issue down to black-and-white like a Tea Bagger would?

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. 'You sound like an all-or-nothing conservative

'and a dumb tea bagger'

Anything else Jeffy?

[JEFF9K]

35. It's hard to argue with the logic of the article linked within the linked article:

It's hard to argue with the logic of the article linked within the linked article:

But Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, defended the program, saying it has helped law enforcement keep up with criminals.

"All police are doing is taking advantage of the advances of technology in terms of surveillance, in terms of communication and in terms of protective equipment that are available to criminals on the street," Pasco said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/defense/215207-left-right-unify-behind-push-to-demilitarize-the-police#ixzz3ATy0BKja
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

If you can show me that the "militarized" presence in Ferguson caused more casualties rather than less casualties, I might re-think my position.

[dbackjon]

48. You only have to look at what happened when the State Police, not pointing rifles, without snipers,

etc took over.


Military-style response only inflames the issue.

[JEFF9K]

62. How many casualties ...

... were caused or PREVENTED by the initial response?

[neverforget]

67. the police used that equipment to intimidate the people of

Ferguson. Look what happened after that was removed from the streets: a peaceful protest. In other words, they got exercise their Constitutional right to free assembly instead of being confronted by the police.

[JEFF9K]

69. In other words ...

... you don't know.

[dbackjon]

91. Nor do you.

We do know what happened when the fascists were removed from the scene.

[JEFF9K]

93. What a smart-alecky comment!

Bad logic, also.

[Ikonoklast]

158. And you asked a poster above to prove a negative.

Bad logic, indeed.


You aren't fooling anyone.

[neverforget]

108. In other words, you just don't care about the protesters, just the cops.

[cui bono]

104. That quote is from a LEO, what do you think they are going to say?

Also, you seem to be focused only on the physical harm of militarization. But the fact is that is is used as an intimidation tactic to make people think twice about coming out into the streets and exercising their constitutional right to protest peacefully.

You were condemning another poster for seeing things as black and white yet that's exactly what you are doing with your argument when you argue only points about physical harm. It's harmful to our entire democracy. If we allow it to continue we will be living in a fascist state. No physical harm need be done at all if the people obey. The police arrested and detained journalists for no reason at all. They fired tear gas directly at a news crew and then tampered with their equipment. That is harmful to freedom of the press.

However, physical harm was done, to keep it in your terms. Tear gas was fired directly at people. Tear gas is not allowed to be used in war yet we use it on civilians. How sick is that?

Physical harm was done to the Occupy protesters as well. Tear gas, pepper spray. So even by your narrow view, harm is being done. You just seem to be able to ignore it because it hasn't happened to you or those you know.

In another post you made a point of stating that you are in America. Why do you say that? What does that mean to you? We have a constitution that gives the people inalienable rights and yet you are defending a police state, which if left unchecked will make America a fascist state. So what is it you think America as all about then?

[ancianita]

144. The fact that Ferguson's representative Clay voted for the amendment should tell you something

about what he thinks is in his constituents' interests, with or without a casualty comparison.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Because in large measure, it IS fucking "black and white."

Yeah, us white folks needs dem dere Bearcats and machine guns to protect us from the rampaging darkies who will otherwise overrun us, take all our stuff, ad then take physical revenge on us for all the lousy shit we have been doing to them for the last 400 years.

Like, yeah, man, dat's it. I gits it.

[JEFF9K]

56. You either don't understand the concept of "black-and-white" or you are trying to ...

... be clever. Double fail!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

116. Still trying to come up with a response to this one, are ya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5392005

[malaise]

97. Indeed

Damn!

[NoMoreRepugs]

16. Jeff9K - Excuse me but are you new to our planet?

Do you understand the carnage these weapons cause when they are in the hands of individuals that aren't in a combat zone? No amount of safety training for the donut munchers is going to override the swelling in their pants over having overwhelming superior firepower - why do you think so many ex-military go into law enforcement?? To serve and protect? I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps (71-77) as a battalion armorer and practically saw no one I thought should have had a weapon in their hands outside in the 'real' (civilian) world...

[KoKo]

22. Your two posts contradict each other....

can you explain?

[JEFF9K]

39. "Militarization" includes an extensive array of DEFENSIVE products.

It's possible that a case could be made against over-the-top OFFENSIVE products.

Grayson apparently lumps everything together.

[frylock]

54. the DEFENSIVE products are being used for OFFENSE, exclusivley

[JEFF9K]

58. Got any examples?

[frylock]

64. compare and contrast..

?8

[JEFF9K]

70. In no way does that prove that ...

In no way does that prove that defensive equipment was used "exclusively" for offense.

[frylock]

71. what it does show is that this equipment is entirely unneccessary in this situation

[JEFF9K]

78. You are wrong.

Until the smoke clears we won't know for sure whether "militarization" helped or hurt in this particular case. Or whether it's a good or bad thing in general.

[frylock]

80. how does that comport with the demonstrations last night vs wednesday night?

give it a fucking rest with your clearing smoke bullcrap. local cops with their battle armament removed from the equation equals peaceful demonstrations. you'd have to be fucking stupid to not see who the aggressors were here.

[JEFF9K]

86. YOU should give it a rest.

It's clearly too early to make an evaluation of the effects of "militarization" in the Ferguson case.

And anyway, the thread is about a bill of dubious merit that would apply to the entire country.

[frylock]

141. what is it that you're afraid of that you would invite tactical units into your neighborhood?

[cui bono]

76. Those armored vehicles they created for the Iraq war.

Supposedly a defensive vehicle but used on city streets it is clearly being used as offense.

[JEFF9K]

81. How many people were injured or killed by these vehicles in Ferguson?

[cui bono]

83. Oh, so now you've upped your ante.

Are you going to excuse all military equipment used in Ferguson because only certain actual items hit a protester?

were as part of an offensive tactic. They carried LEO who wore military grade uniforms on and carried military grade weapons. They had the guns (machine gun?) on top of them.

All of it is used offensively whether or not a bullet is fired or a tear gas canister thrown because they are being used to intimidate, to silence through intimidation, to control through intimidation. Then if we are not intimidated they will use force.

This is too important to play word games with. You must open your eyes to the bigger picture.

[JEFF9K]

87. It's YOU that's playing word games.

Facts are facts and you can't do anything about it.

[cui bono]

88. No. I am not playing games and I am not defending the militarization of our police forces.

Btw... I edited my response while you were posting to add the intimidation factor. Please check it out.

[JEFF9K]

95. Intimidation factor?

Talk about grasping at straws!!

[cui bono]

96. What grasping at straws is that?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of intimidation? It's pretty common throughout society. I'm surprised by your response tbh.

[LanternWaste]

120. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?

[99th_Monkey]

18. Posse Comitatus

Posse Comitatus Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

The Act, as modified in 1981, refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[JEFF9K]

74. What does that have to do with THIS situation?

[99th_Monkey]

90. The spirit of this Act is counter to militarizing local police forces.

That is all.

[IDemo]

19. "safety forces"

My arse.

[JEFF9K]

30. You are denying that the police are called "safety forces?"

[IDemo]

34. Call them purple magic dragons

Either would be as accurate.

[lark]

20. I think you're missing the bigger picture.

Is militarization used against right wing militias - NO, the police back down against an equally armed foe. Militarized police are being used against unarmed citizens protesting against a kid being killed for the crime of being black. How can you actually support that? Do you want us to emalate Iraq where bands of police go around and shoot up anyone who isn't of their sectarian beliefs? That's what being militarized could lead to. The picture already is unacceptable and will only get worse without controls being put in place.

[JEFF9K]

33. How many victims of "militarization" have there been in Ferguson?

[frylock]

55. none anymore, since the local cops have been relieved of duty

[JEFF9K]

59. How many before that?

[frylock]

66. you mean how many were hit with rubber bullets or were subjected to gas canisters?

I don't have those numbers handy, but I'm sure you knew that. how many people were hit by rubber bullets last night? you don't find it at all curious that last night we had the same protestors, and the same media, but different law enforcement in place, yet there were no "riots?"

speaking of media, what's your take on this?

Al Jazeera America reporter gets hit with tear gas in Ferguson

what were the police defending themselves against here with their defensive weaponry?

[JEFF9K]

89. The SAME protestors?

In other words, no casualties!

[cui bono]

85. Wow. You are actually arguing for militarization.

We are ALL victims of the militarization of Ferguson. It's happening all over the country.

Why are you defending it?

[JEFF9K]

92. I'm in America.

I don't see how I'm a victim of "militarization."

No one I know considers themself a victim of "militarization."

Until there is reason to believe that "militarization" is, on balance, harmful rather than helpful, we should hold off on bills like Grayson's.


















'

[cui bono]

94. Why did you make a point of stating you are in America?

We have a constitution here that gives us the right to assemble peacably.

I don't see how I'm a victim of "militarization."

No one I know considers themself a victim of "militarization."

So you simply don't care what happens to other people as long as you and the people you know aren't affected. Check.


Have you heard the term "police state"? Intimidation?

Did you see what happened to the Occupy protesters?

Are you against protests?

The militarization is there to keep us in our place. To intimidate and force us into "behaving" as TPTB would like us to behave. There will be no complaining, just take the scraps they give us. But you are fine with that as long as you and your friends aren't what, physically injured? Because you know you are injured in other ways. We all are.

[LanternWaste]

121. A battleship gifted to coastal city police force...

A battleship gifted to coastal city police force would fit well within any of the parameters you've given.

(time to move the goalposts...)

[lark]

180. I haven't seen the injury count

but I was talking slippery slope. No, we're not Fallujah - yet .

[frylock]

51. of course you don't..

lemme guess: white, middle class?

[NickB79]

126. "Better-armed criminals"? Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Please, show us the stats on all these "better-armed criminals" that require ordinary cops to have access to military-grade hardware.

Here, I'll even help you out: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s, they saw more modest drops in crime rates since 2000.

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the Pew Research Center study says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew," according to the Pew study. "The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75 percent lower in 2011 than in 1993."

[NutmegYankee]

136. Safety Forces? Look at this picture (Graphic Warning)

Militarized police threw a flash bang grenade right onto this sleeping baby and blew a hole into his chest and severely burned his face. He was in a Coma for a month!



This is what you support.

The family, which includes four children, stayed with Bou Bou's aunt in Georgia for two months.

Police raided the home saying they believed Bou Bou's cousin lived there, and was some type of dangerous drug dealer.

The raid turned up no drugs, no guns, and not even the suspect police were looking for.

It only managed to put the 19 month old in the hospital.
http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-news/Baby-Bou-Bou-back-in-Wisconsin-after-surviving-flash-bang-explosion-266510811.html

[drynberg]

155. So every small town needs a flame thrower and tank?

Please.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. States have armies, they're called the National Guard...

If there's a problem with domestic terrorism, they can be called in to handle it. Law enforcement doesn't need to be militarized.

[Marr]

163. Yay for the Safety Tank!

[KoKo]

17. Only 43 Dems and 19 Repubs voted for Grayson's Amendment....

There's much work to be done...

[billhicks76]

146. Purge Hillary,Hoyer, Feinstein, Pelosi etc

Last edited Sat Aug 16, 2014, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

These people and their spouses profit of the international war machine and now it appears the domestic one also whether it be NSA, private prisons or corporate security. We need fighters not sell outs. Things are moving fast and a new candidate can replace Hillary.

[stonecutter357]

150. Purge Purge Purge Purge Purge Purge them all!

[billhicks76]

165. Primary Challenges

Last edited Sat Aug 16, 2014, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

God I'm so sick of the smug emoticons. But I'm much more sick of corporate Trojan Horses in our political system. I have nothing personal against these charlatans. They would make good CEOs but they don't belong managing our country just because they are better than the ugly alternative on the Right. They are like Vichey politicians. Politics needs to be taken back by the people because it has been corrupted. What Pelosi and Feinsteins husbands do is a prime example. Hoyer fronts for the military industrial and surveillance complex everyday too. Frankly it's disgusting and yeah I thought Bush should've been impeached whether it could've been successful or not. Most Democrats I know agree with me but I'm not a Beltway Backslapper. But I also don't sit around laughing at my own jokes either. Purge them...like vomiting up infected food with a virus. There is nothing worse than watching the decay of the Democratic party with fat cat, corporate plasticine Republican-Lite wanna be shills sitting in leadership positions purchased from their country club coffers. Cheers to the progressive Democrats who fight in the trenches and don't wear their liberalism on their sleeves.

[frylock]

168. too many people only give a shit about looking cool in their Democratic party letterman jacket.

[billhicks76]

169. I Noticed In College

That most people just wanted to be on the winning team. They live in a fear based reality. That was when republicans ruled the land. But I see the same infectious vice within our own party. It's like the same people who sold their integrity for access or wealth.

[stonecutter357]

170. .

[billhicks76]

172. Lame And Worthless

As usual.

[stonecutter357]

174. smug and sanctimonious.

As usual.

[billhicks76]

175. Yawn

.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. Now watch some Right Winger give a list of all Dems that voted for it....

And of course exclude all Republicans thus making it appear that they are on the side of the public.

We are still seeing the effect of the rightward shift of the party from the Clinton Era and you will see it go further to the Right after they anoint Hillary.

[Roland99]

26. Sure would be nice if Democrats would act like Democrats (like Grayson, Kucinich, et al)

instead of the sniveling, GOP-lite fraidy-cats that most of them are.

[Nay]

50. Ain't that the truth. nt

[L0oniX]

101. The party labels stay the same while the ideals change. Happened before and it's happening now.

[polichick]

27. One corporate party - two faces. Wake up America!

[awoke_in_2003]

123. Too bad we can't rec posts. nt

[ladjf]

28. That shows me that Grayson was smarter than

the other Dems.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. He's a fearless truth teller

we could use 400 more just like him.
I can't think of a time I've ever disagreed with him...... but you know me ......I'm a dumb conservative tea bagger as explained in this thread.

[maddiemom]

38. I, amazed on learning how many small town police departments are being given

sophisticated military weaponry. A few years ago, in my relatively small college town (many more university students than local citizens), a sometimes homeless, and very harmless well-know wanderer about town was shot and killed by a local cop who thought "he was carrying what looked like a weapon." The saddest thing was that his family, hundreds of miles away, had apparently given him up and just shrugged it all off. Having had occasional interaction with this person, as had many other "solid citizens" I (and many of those others)was deeply saddened by how this was written off and forgotten. More recently some local citizens have begun trying "to do something about the misbehavior" of college students during homecoming weekend. One of the biggest complaints was the blocking of traffic on fraternity row, which sometimes spilled over into other streets. For many decades homecoming day was an accepted, even enjoyable break for the college kids. Forty years ago, give and take a decade or two, things were way wilder and tolerated at the least. I'm a senior citizen, who graduated at that time ( close to the "Animal House" era) and can't believe that the "outraged adults" at that time, looked like swingers compared to their grandkids...or maybe were just taken with a few more grains of salt in the overall scheme of things.

[maddiemom]

40. Oh, meant to say: I can't wait for the day our local police force are equipped with tanks to

contain those crazy college kids during homecoming.

[H2O Man]

41. Extremely important!

Thank you for posting this.

Recommended.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. I certainly hope there's a motion to reconsider

It might fair better now.

[colsohlibgal]

52. No Shock At All

I'm getting hammered with funding requests from the DCCC, both snail mail and email, but that's a no go with me. Not with things like this issue and the corporate wing, right up to Barry, trying to quietly ram the awful TPP through to law on the fast track.

I donate to progressives individually, I don't want one cent of mine going to the often two faced third way types.

[MisterP]

53. let's punish them by voting twice as hard!

[frylock]

57. GOTV!

[Thinkingabout]

60. With the ability of some of the weapons to be purchased there may be times when the extra equipment

would be needed. Until this ability is halted then there will be a need of police departments to have this equipment available. The next point it to know and understand when and where to use this equipment. I recall a few years back in Los Angeles where the police had to go to a gun shop to get weapons to handle a very bad situation in the streets there.

[JEFF9K]

65. A sensible response!

How did you get through?

It's nice to see someone who doesn't just jump on the bandwagon.

[TheKentuckian]

159. End the failed drug war and not only will they not need this hardware but we'll find

most departments have little justification for their bloated budgets or number of personnel.

Also, just because they made the little show you mentioned to justify a larger budget and sympathy for more toys to terrorize doesn't mean they even needed the shit then, couldn't be that big since you don't seem to remember what the hubbub even was or how the shopping trip carried the day.

People are always making up these movie style shootouts with ever out gunned cops supposedly due to the availability of weapons that have been around for a hundred fucking years like life is a fucking warzone but it isn't until they make it that way.
Bullshit, there is almost no need for this shit and certainly not the wild proliferation.

This is a con job.

Cops aren't doing shit but writing tickets and screwing around with vice, take those things away and they are doing very, very little other than post incident reports.

[Thinkingabout]

160. The incident i was talking aboit was a bank robbery.

One of the problems is with groups who gathered on the Bundy ranch and one of them died a few weeks back who are armed very heavily. We should not subject our police to not having needed protection, after all AR15 are being sold to civilians. No background checks, etc, selling combat style weapons and police need combat style vehicles to protect themselves. It has all run amok, totally out of hand, on all sides and the bunch of yahoos in Congress isn't doing crap.

[TheKentuckian]

161. Bullshit, semiautomatic weapons have been available for generations. Stop the excuses.

[Thinkingabout]

162. I have not made excuses, this is reality, would you want to step out in a

Street with AR15s firing all around you and not have any protection?

[TheKentuckian]

166. What movie did you see this in? What you describe is pretty much nonexistent.

A fairy tale to frighten folks into acceptance of the absurd barely reflected in reality and that exception to the 99.9% of the time willfully self inflicted by the failed and stupid drug war.

[merrily]

61. Yeas and Nays

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

Even most of the Massachusetts delegation voted against the amendment. Capuano (usually impeccable), Kennedy (yes those Kennedys), Lynch.

A notable exception who voted for was Tierney, who may lose his seat soon (because no one really believes he didn't know his wife and her family were crooks and Democrats trying to primary him are attacking with gusto).

Then again, Boston was the site of an attack that is still fresh in everyone's mind. Not that all the surveillance or the equipment or two tips from Russia prevented it.

[Dems to Win]

100. Thanks for the link!

Now to write a scolding letter to my rep. I expect better next time, when Rep Johnson's bill comes to a vote.

[merrily]

102. You are welcome. I am of the view that

yeas and nays of every vote on a bill and every Senate vote on cloture should be posted the day after on a government website that is easy to navigate.

I find the current system hard to use, even if you somehow know the name and number of the bill and the date of the vote== and I am beginning to suspect that is no accident.

[woo me with science]

173. "...even if you somehow know the name and number of the bill"

Well said. Citizens need a simple, well-publicized way to access that information.

Journalists also should routinely put the exact names and numbers of bills in published news reports, so that we can follow up on them in the public record. So often I see news stories that reference "a bill" going through Congress, but the description is so vague that it takes significant work to actually figure out which bill it is and find information about it beyond what's in the article. We often hear about promised legislation, or threatened legislation, and then we never hear about it again.

And you're right; even if you do have that information, finding information can be ridiculously confusing and non-intuitive. I believe the difficulty in navigation is absolutely deliberate. I think your idea of making websites that make it easy to follow legislation is fantastic and sorely needed. Publicize it, and bring people into the process. Just as people in this country are not taught economics, there's significant effort devoted to making sure that the nuts and bolts of the political process seem remote, complex, and arcane to most people. That's a problem, and it serves the oligarchs.

[blkmusclmachine]

68. There's about 2% difference btwn the DEMS and the GOP, but militarizing the Police Force isn't part

of the difference.

[lovemydog]

73. Alan Grayson,

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, a few more. We need as many of these folks in Congress as possible. We need more women in Congress. We need more people of color in Congress. We need more more more progressives in Congress.

[avaistheone1]

75. k&r

[leftstreet]

77. DURec

[MADem]

79. Follow the money. Look at the congresspersons, then look at their districts.

Find out how much of the stuff being transferred to the PDs was manufactured, in whole or in part, in their districts.

This tension between jobs for constituents and military gear is the reason why Senator Warren voted to retain a battlefield system the Army and the Pentagon leadership did not want, did not need, and didn't plan on using.

It's all about constituent j-o-b-s.

[hibbing]

107. feed the pig

They have to keep their corporate masters well fed. And yes, those military contractors spread those jobs all over the damn country. Some part made here, some electronics made there, something assembled somewhere else. So every member of Congress is beholden to them all.

Peace

[ancianita]

145. Jobs are usually a factor, but Ferguson's own representative Clay voted for the amendment,

hopefully not to eliminate constituent jobs, but because he knew the presence of such equipment would be intimidating and inflammatory for festering police/civilian relations. I'd like to think that, anyway.

[MADem]

148. I'll bet there isn't a single pork barrel enterprise

from the "defense" sector in his district.

If there were, he would have voted with the rest.

[ancianita]

151. Actually, google shows a few within commuting distance of Ferguson.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2011/03/st-louis-largest-defense-contractors.html

I'm not making a case, just pointing out a possible motive for his vote.

[MADem]

152. All politics is local.

People shouldn't be surprised if legislators vote in ways that support and enable their constituencies.

[hobbit709]

82. Just another reason for me to not give the national party the time of day, much less money.

[betterdemsonly]

84. I wish Grayson would run for President n/t

[JEFF9K]

98. Has anyone considered the possibility that Grayson's amendment is not a good idea.

And that maybe, just maybe, that's why it was voted down so overwhelmingly?

[merrily]

103. Yes. I live in Boston, land of the Marathon attack. I considered that and rejected.

And that maybe, just maybe, that's why it was voted down so overwhelmingly?

Sure, because no good idea gets voted down in D.C.

If you think you have a case to make, make it.

[L0oniX]

99. This party is just about dead to me.

[Dems to Win]

105. Barbara Lee speaks for me.

A great protest sign in 2001, 2002, 2003....and 2014.

Rep. Lee voted Yes on the Grayson amendment.

I wish I could get in every Congressmember's face and show them Rep. Lee's record of prophetic wisdom in all matters of war and peace and the entire DOD and MIC. Members should think long and hard before opposing her positions.

[merrily]

111. She voted no on Iraq, too. (Was that the time she was the only "no" vote in

the House?)

I usually like the way Capuano votes, even though he is not my rep. This is the first time I looked up his vote and did not like it. I can only think it was the Marathon attack that influenced him.

[Dems to Win]

113. She Voted NO on Afghanistan and Iraq

NO on the Patriot Act

She voted against the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan war and is still being used, to this day, as authorization for the drone attacks.

From Wiki:

"Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the authorization of use of force following the September 11, 2001 attacks."

[merrily]

114. AUMF = War on Terror.

More context from that same wiki

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. [1] Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against this bill.[2]
Senate

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

Two days after the attack on the WTC, not knowing what might come next, voting no took a lot of foresight, and a spine of steel, especially given the wording of the authorization. The only one to have those was Lee.

Kudos. Props. Respect. Applause.

[DonCoquixote]

106. I can understand why some Dinos buckled

But Nancy Pelosi, when the lens of history is cleaned, you will be seen as a chief enabler of the Dinos, from this bs to "impeachment is off the table."

[merrily]

112. It was not some DINOs. It was most House Democrats.

Now, if you want to say most House Democrats are DINOs, that is a different story (and certainly says something very depressing about Senate Democrats, the Senate being more conservative than the House, as a general matter.

[DonCoquixote]

115. my point being

what was Nancy's excuse?

[merrily]

124. None. Same no excuse for all of the House Democrats who voted against it.

I got your point, but also got that it was not only "some DINOs" who voted against it.

[Uncle Joe]

117. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Report.

[riverbendviewgal]

122. They must vote their oligarchy masters wishes.

oligarchy or plutocracy? both elite and not for the people but the elite and corporations.
America has sunk so low.

[Thor_MN]

127. How is the MIC supposed to turn a profit if the Military doesn't "surplus" equipment

and turn around and buy more the next year? Hell, if the military did get rid of stuff they haven't used, the bases would subsiding into the earth under the weight of purchased goods.

[maddiemom]

128. Once again, thank you Rep. Grayson for continuing to bring common sense to an increasingly insane

nation. I, for one, will feel much safer if my local police department is able to obtain a tank and a missile launcher---NOT. Already local citizens are becoming worried about how crazy the college students here are becoming during homecoming weekend. They have actually been known to block streets on fraternity row for an entire afternoon once a year! As an old timer, I'm glad that they were too young, or unborn during my day: the Animal House era. They deserve 24/7 peace.

[Fuddnik]

129. Oxymoron

"Democratic Leadership".

[Agony]

133. one word... Corruption.

[tblue37]

134. Just as with the Iraq war vote, they are all too scared of being

smeared as weak on law and order if they vote in favor of any limitations on cops.

[sabbat hunter]

138. I think that

the term military grade equipment is too broad and ill defined. I don't see any grenade launchers, launch vehicles, guided or ballistic missiles ever having been given to police departments. Nor should they be.. But what else could be considered military grade equipment?
High powered rifles? riot gear (which can be like combat gear in some regards)?


Toxicological agent, if it includes tear gas, is also too broad. Tear gas has been used for a very very long time as a crowd control method, during riots, as a non lethal way of dispersing the rioters. Although it is very rarely used by the police. Does toxicological agents also include pepper spray, another useful non lethal weapon for police officers.


Unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles can be useful for police, but are they considered military grade equipment?

[Savannahmann]

142. Grenade launchers are used by police

That's how they send the tear gas canisters a hundred yards down the street. Yes, the cops have grenade launchers. While they use them to launch beanbag rounds considered "Less than lethal" and tear gas, that is still a grenade launcher.

Very rarely used. Have you watched the videos from Ferguson? Or any other crowd control issue? They go through tear gas like a party at a Frat house goes through beer.

Then there is the pepper spray paint ball guns. No worries, they only burn like hell for a while.

I'm a little surprised by your lack of knowledge about what is going to the Police. Did you know that the cops received 93,000 fully automatic rifles from the military. Not total, not in the history of the program. Last year, in 2013 the Military transferred 93,000 fully automatic rifles to the cops.

93,000 seems like a lot. I don't know, what do you think? I mean, we're talking about the population of a fair sized town here. That doesn't include officers who buy their own, or the departments that just buy them instead of asking the military for some.

But that's fine, no worries. At least they don't have guided missiles.... Yet. The cops will be declaring they need those against terrorists who arm Drones in the near future. Doubt me? Bookmark this and come back in a few years when the cops are asking for stinger or patriot missiles in case the terrorists decide to copy us and arm drones.

[another_liberal]

140. Lets face it folks . . .

Our Congressional Representatives don't even read the bills they vote for, or against.

"Ballistic missiles" for local police forces, indeed!

[Zorra]

147. Grayson for President. nt

[New Deal Liberal]

149. Corruption

Corruption on both sides of the aisle.

[SmittynMo]

154. WTF is wrong with these idiots we put in charge.

Very sad day. And more to come, since this was rejected. Yeah, right, we need to turn our police force into soldiers. WTF!!!

Election time is right around the corner.

[Hotler]

156. They are all rat fuckers. Neither side of the aisle care one bit about us little people.

They only care about their sorry little lives and their rich fucking friends.

[Liberal_from_va34]

164. It's clear that neither party is interested in promoting the interests of the common folk.

Instead, they do everything they can to ensure the continuous prosperity of the elite 1%, at the expense of the impoverished. Truly disheartening. Hopefully more Americans will wake up and realize what's happening.

[malaise]

167. They are also on College Campuses

It's scary

[woo me with science]

176. +1 And this Democratic administration has actively resurrected and expanded the programs.

ACLU launches nationwide police militarization investigation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html

It's almost certain that if the police agencies cooperate, the ACLU will find that the militarization trend has accelerated since Kraska's studies more than a decade ago. All of the policies, incentives and funding mechanisms that were driving the trend then are still in effect now. And most of them have grown in size and scope.

The George W. Bush administration actually began scaling down the Byrne and COPS programs in the early 2000s, part of a general strategy of leaving law enforcement to states and localities. But the Obama administration has since resurrected both programs. The Byrne program got a $2 billion surge in funding as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by far the largest budget in the program's 25-year history. Obama also gave the COPS program $1.55 billion that same year, a 250 percent increase over its 2008 budget, and again the largest budget in the program's history. Vice President Joe Biden had championed both programs during his time in the Senate.

The Pentagon's 1033 program has also exploded under Obama. In the program's monthly newsletter (Motto: "From Warfighter to Crimefighter&quot , its director announced in October 2011 that his office had given away a record $500 million in military gear in fiscal year 2011, which he noted, "passes the previous mark by several hundred million dollars." He added, "I believe we can exceed that in FY 12.”

Then there are the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism grants. The Center for Investigative Reporting found in a 2011 investigation that since 2001, DHS has given out more than $34 billion in grants to police departments across the country, many of which have been used to purchase military-grade guns, tanks, armor, and armored personnel carriers. The grants have gone to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Canyon County, Idaho; and Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Link to the final ACLU report on militarization of police in America
https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-police-report

[Blue_Tires]

178. Sad that so many congresscritters fear the dreaded

"soft on crime" advertising label...

[woo me with science]

181. kick

[woo me with science]

182. kick