Bringing the war zone home to America's streets

January 12, 11:41 AMLibertarian ExaminerTrevor Bothwell

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The Buffalo News runs a story today about an Iraq and Afghanistan war vet who is set to become a Buffalo police officer.

William “Craig” Macy won’t hit city streets as a Buffalo police officer until this spring, but he already has been shot at countless times, wounded once and patrolled some of the world’s toughest neighborhoods.

The 27-year-old North Buffalo man was supposed to begin service with the city force a year ago. He was, in fact, sworn in with about 80 other new recruits.

But Uncle Sam had other plans — a trip to Afghanistan, where he frequently engaged in combat.

That wasn’t his first call to active duty as a member of the Army National Guard.

While on patrol Memorial Day 2005 in Baghdad, he narrowly escaped a mortal wound when a sniper shot him in the pelvis, less than an inch from his femoral artery.

It should be no surprise that former combat troops are among the most sought after commodities by police departments once they return home from the war zone. Any wonder, then, why America's streets are starting to resemble the battlefield, as U.S. citizens continue to be gunned down by overzealous cops?

I'm not blaming Mr. Macy or his fellow soldiers for the increasing militarization of domestic police departments. Just the opposite, I blame the state and its attendant politicians and bureaucrats who seek out former servicemen and women because they will more easily adapt to the authoritarian environment the state has already created at home.

Moreover, I don't necessarily disagree with Macy when he says his military training will better help him to "use a lot of discretion" and "make quick decisions" on the police force. If we must employ government police officers, perhaps there is an argument to be made that well-trained ex-soldiers will use their weapons more responsibly and apply laws more fairly and consistently than those without military experience. (For purposes of this argument I am not taking into consideration the fact that many laws are unjust in the first place, in which case fair and consistent application means very little to a free society.)

On the other hand, however, is it not just as likely that we'll end up with increasing numbers of police officers who view American citizens as "the enemy" or "targets," rather than as employers who are innocent until proven guilty? Don't we run the risk of handing firearms and unilateral authority to men and women who are damaged goods; who suffer from post-traumatic stress and other war-induced emotional abnormalities?

To ask these questions should be to answer them. In the eyes of the state, the more inured the people become to government authority, the better. And how better to ensure the subjugation of the American people than to hire police officers who already come equipped with the warrior's mentality? All the more money that can be saved on training and put toward weaponry, right?

Whereas the Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to prohibit the U.S. military's physical presence in domestic law enforcement matters, I would argue that it's just as important to keep the military mindset off America's streets as well. Of course, Posse Comitatus essentially was repealed by the vile Military Commissions Act of 2006, just as our supposed guarantee of civil liberties has been at the hands of the current American police state.