WSJ on the militarization of the police

I used to believe Alex Jones was a nut till a lot of his "stories" became true. Originally Posted by zerodahero

Name one.

Even the Wall Street Journal is against all the SWAT teams:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Forget all the state and local SWAT teams.

Just look at the federal agencies that have SWAT teams:
-----------------------------------------------------
"A number of federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including the Fish & Wildlife Service, NASA, the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the Department of the Interior. In 2011, the Department of Education's SWAT team bungled a raid on a woman who was initially reported to be under investigation for not paying her student loans, though the agency later said she was suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program."
---------------------------------------------------------

SERIOUSLY??!?!

NASA has a SWAT team?

AND the Consumer Product Safety Commission? For what do they need one? Originally Posted by ExNYer

NASA has a SWAT team?

AND the Consumer Product Safety Commission? For what do they need one?

They don't. it's a "keep up with the Joneses" mentality .. or worse. Either way its bullshit.

Eccie should have it's own swat team. Volunteers? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

make that a twat team and i'm IN!

I suppose any government agency with security concerns ought to address those concerns in a reasonable manner. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable that a governmental agency that has as high a profile as NASA would have some sort of a security team that has the training and equipment to respond to a criminal or terrorist threat on their premises.

I find it amusing that the same folks that will come here and quack about nonsense like this will scream at the top of their lungs that they should be allowed to have as many assault rifles, 17 round Glocks, and high capacity ammunition magazines as they want....but, the governmental agencies security teams and law enforcement, charged with the responsibility of protecting those agencies and the general public, shouldn't do everything possible to ensure they have the equipment, tactics and training to do their jobs.

It's about the anti-government band-wagon. Nothing more.

I guess it wasn't a liberal who pasted a picture of a 12 year old Travon Martin all over the papers instead of a picture of the 17 year old thug, Excuse me I must have been wrong. Them damn Fear Mongers at work again. We don't really have a drug problem and there are no street gangs. These are just misunderstood boys. They dismembered Carina Sanders, but there is no reason to bust down their door. Lets try to reason with them. I know, maybe we could have a big picnic. Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

And another ECCIE racist rears his ugly head.

I suppose any government agency with security concerns ought to address those concerns in a reasonable manner. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable that a governmental agency that has as high a profile as NASA would have some sort of a security team that has the training and equipment to respond to a criminal or terrorist threat on their premises.

I find it amusing that the same folks that will come here and quack about nonsense like this will scream at the top of their lungs that they should be allowed to have as many assault rifles, 17 round Glocks, and high capacity ammunition magazines as they want....but, the governmental agencies security teams and law enforcement, charged with the responsibility of protecting those agencies and the general public, shouldn't do everything possible to ensure they have the equipment, tactics and training to do their jobs.

It's about the anti-government band-wagon. Nothing more. Originally Posted by timpage

No, I don't buy it.

NASA can regular uniformed security officers like everybody else, including my office building. If Al Qaeda decides to attack Mission Control in Houston, they can call the real cops like everybody else.

And, really, the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Are they going to storm a Toy 'R' Us warehouse and seize a bunch of Chinese made teddy bears that may have lead paint in the eyeballs?

This is nothing more that mission creep. We have a bunch of defense contractors who make armored cars, so now we have to find new markets for them so they don't go bust. So, the federal government allows/encourages the sale of these behemoths to every podunk police department in the country.

And, hey, if you've got them, you've got to use them, right?

actually the link now has a correction at the bottom ..

Corrections & Amplifications
The Consumer Products Safety Commission does not have a SWAT team. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that it does.

don't we all feel so much better now?

.

And another ECCIE racist rears his ugly head. Originally Posted by Doove

actually the link now has a correction at the bottom ..

Corrections & Amplifications
The Consumer Products Safety Commission does not have a SWAT team. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that it does.

don't we all feel so much better now? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Absolutely relieved.

I feel so much better that it is just the Department of Education and the Fish & Wildlife Service. That I can live with.

No, I don't buy it.

NASA can regular uniformed security officers like everybody else, including my office building. If Al Qaeda decides to attack Mission Control in Houston, they can call the real cops like everybody else.

And, really, the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Are they going to storm a Toy 'R' Us warehouse and seize a bunch of Chinese made teddy bears that may have lead paint in the eyeballs?

This is nothing more that mission creep. We have a bunch of defense contractors who make armored cars, so now we have to find new markets for them so they don't go bust. So, the federal government allows/encourages the sale of these behemoths to every podunk police department in the country.

And, hey, if you've got them, you've got to use them, right? Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're rationalizing now. I don't know what you do for a living, but the idea that your office building and NASA in Houston have the same security concerns is absurd. Up until very recently, NASA was directing space missions that could have posed very attractive targets for terrorists looking for quick world-wide attention.

I certainly don't disagree with the premise that the defense contractor market is out of control and needs some restraint. That doesn't necessarily translate to the assumption that certain government agencies don't require the security budget and apparatus that are in place for those agencies. I can just hear the quacking from the wingers if a group of terrorists took over NASA because the security folks there were waiting for the Houston PD to show up.

You're rationalizing now. I don't know what you do for a living, but the idea that your office building and NASA in Houston have the same security concerns is absurd. Up until very recently, NASA was directing space missions that could have posed very attractive targets for terrorists looking for quick world-wide attention.

I certainly don't disagree with the premise that the defense contractor market is out of control and needs some restraint. That doesn't necessarily translate to the assumption that certain government agencies don't require the security budget and apparatus that are in place for those agencies. I can just hear the quacking from the wingers if a group of terrorists took over NASA because the security folks there were waiting for the Houston PD to show up. Originally Posted by timpage

Maybe I didn't explain enough.

SWAT teams and armored cars are for penetrating a building or other facility where the bad guys are - that is AFTER the attack has already happened.

You don't need that at a NASA facility. First, like any secure facility, there is a perimeter fence including walls/embankments that a vehicle cannot climb. Second, you have guard shacks and gates that all visitors must drive through in order to get into the parking lots. Concrete barriers prevent someone from driving into the building instead of the parking lot. Third, you have guards - including armed ones - and metal detectors at the entrance doors.

None of that requires a SWAT team or an armored vehicle.

Every federal court house in the country has the armed guards and metal detectors right in the entrance lobby. That is what you need to stop armed terrorists from coming in.

If the terrorists decide to try a suicide bomber or a car bomb in the parking lot, having a SWAT team won't make a difference. They will get blown up, too.

And if terrorists DO succeed in capturing a NASA facility, there is no reason why NASA needs to call its own personal SWAT team.

They can call a SWAT team from the FBI (they will have jurisdiction over a federal facility) or they can call Houston PD.

The more authorities with control over a SWAT that you have, the more problems you will have. Which is why the Department of Education sent a SWAT team after someone defrauding student loans.

SWAT teams should be kept small in number and in the hands of well trained police units that have at least SOME inkling of when it is NOT appropriate to use them.

Maybe I didn't explain enough.

SWAT teams and armored cars are for penetrating a building or other facility where the bad guys are - that is AFTER the attack has already happened.

You don't need that at a NASA facility. First, like any secure facility, there is a perimeter fence including walls/embankments that a vehicle cannot climb. Second, you have guard shacks and gates that all visitors must drive through in order to get into the parking lots. Concrete barriers prevent someone from driving into the building instead of the parking lot. Third, you have guards - including armed ones - and metal detectors at the entrance doors.

None of that requires a SWAT team or an armored vehicle.

Every federal court house in the country has the armed guards and metal detectors right in the entrance lobby. That is what you need to stop armed terrorists from coming in.

If the terrorists decide to try a suicide bomber or a car bomb in the parking lot, having a SWAT team won't make a difference. They will get blown up, too.

And if terrorists DO succeed in capturing a NASA facility, there is no reason why NASA needs to call its own personal SWAT team.

They can call a SWAT team from the FBI (they will have jurisdiction over a federal facility) or they can call Houston PD.

The more authorities with control over a SWAT that you have, the more problems you will have. Which is why the Department of Education sent a SWAT team after someone defrauding student loans.

SWAT teams should be kept small in number and in the hands of well trained police units that have at least SOME inkling of when it is NOT appropriate to use them. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Good points.

Name one. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You started a thread on the militarization of the police. Alex been reporting this for years.

You started a thread on the militarization of the police. Alex been reporting this for years. Originally Posted by zerodahero

Alex Jones hasn't been reporting on the militarization of the police to any greater extent than any reputable news agency.

He has been reporting crazy conspiracy theories about secret cabals (i.e., Jews) that run the world.

To him, SWAT teams are evidence of the secret government.

In reality, SWAT teams are yet more evidence of wasteful government spending. The pols squander resources rather than finding ways to cut spending. So, they make up lame excuses about their need to have a SWAT team in towns with only 15,000 residents.