S
At some point Law Enforcement personell are going to have to take a stand and realize their employer is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and decide who they will support, big brother or the american people.
It has been clear to me for years that the political organizations that are the employers of the law enforcement personell clearly support the big brother scenario and federal trainning and expertise. It is my hope that LE will come down on the side of the constitution and not big brother otherwise the complete fall of the American experiment will be emminent. Swampy
Written by Beverly K. Eakman
Monday, 05 October 2009 14:00
We’ve all heard the expressions “mission creep” and “slippery slope.” But a front page headline in last week’s Washington Times, "DHS helps local police buy military-style sonic device," brings new meaning to these terms. If you’re an aficionado of spy thrillers and sci-fi novels, you may already be aware of Long-Range Acoustical Devices. LRADs are used to disperse militant crowds and enemy squadrons by emitting a piercing sound dangerous (and painful) enough to permanently damage hearing and temporarily distort vision.
Most people familiar with this high-tech instrument assume that its use is confined to violent mobs, looters, and enemy combatants in war zones.
Not any more.
Thanks to Department of Homeland Security grants, local police departments around the country are ordering these devices, and they have already been used at some of last summer’s more spirited town-hall meetings on health care. According to the manufacturer — American Technology Corporation (ATC), based in San Diego — they exist solely to “influence [people’s] behavior and gain compliance.”
Well, that’s comforting.
Using a military-grade weapon that permanently damages hearing to “influence behavior” and “gain compliance” is a far cry from crowd control.
When we think about crowd control, most of us imagine barriers, barricades, and belt-like stanchions keeping long lines of people in queue. Or, for riot situations, we think of smoke grenades, tear gas, batons, and foam bullets aimed at maintaining order in the wake of a natural disaster; curbing hyped-up students who hurl rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails at the behest of professional agitators, injuring innocent bystanders; and battling war-zone insurgents infamous for wearing improvised explosives (IEDs).
To find that Homeland Security, ostensibly formed to protect Americans from foreign terrorists, is actively encouraging local police to crush dissent by inflicting grievous bodily harm on average citizens, steps over the line of acceptability.
Make no mistake — a grant is a form of “encouragement.” Every year, government agencies and private foundations disseminate booklets filled with wish-lists of desired projects, complete with descriptions of the coveted end result and the amount of grant money available to the successful applicant. For example, the U.S. Department of Education might float a grant entitled “TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION,” among other projects. The U.S. Department of Defense might entitle another “RIOT DISPERSAL.” Contenders throw their hat in the ring based on their expertise in the field. The “prize” (i.e., the grant or contract) is awarded on the basis of cost, uniqueness, and reputation, among other criteria. But in soliciting competitors, the project itself is legitimized.
According to Wikipedia, LRADs are high-pitched, high-frequency “cannons” which, at maximum level, emit tones of 146 dBSPL (1,000 W/m²) at 1 meter, a level that is capable of permanently damaging hearing, and way above the human threshold of pain (120–140 dB).
Originally developed for the U.S. Navy’s use in combat zones abroad, this tool of war is increasingly becoming a fixture in local law enforcement agencies, although ATC wouldn’t release a list to the Times. A few cities, however, are known to have them — e.g., San Diego, Pittsburgh, New York, and Miami.
What makes LRADs more worrisome than earlier riot-control gear is, first, the permanence of the damage and, second, the resemblance to outright torture. Even this might be tolerable to some, were it being used to thwart real terrorists, mass murderers, fire-bombers, and snipers, or even to subdue and recapture violent convicts. But police placing LRADs at contentious town-hall meetings broaches entirely new territory. It is only a matter of time — and not much time — before unthinkable weapons are unleashed to break up peaceful demonstrators armed with nothing more than signs, T-shirts, and slogans. Consider:
In November 2007, the State of Maryland employed what amounts to terror tactics on otherwise peaceful parents who didn’t want their children vaccinated for fear of autism. They were worried, and properly so, about little kids getting too many vaccines at one sitting. Nevertheless, the youngsters were herded into a Prince George’s County courthouse, guarded by armed personnel with attack dogs. Inside, the children were forcibly vaccinated under orders from the State Attorney General, thereby stripping otherwise compliant citizens of any right to decide how they wished to protect their offspring from infectious diseases. Health authorities even threatened to jail parents for up to thirty days if they continued to refuse, thereby suppressing both public discussion and dissent. Never mind that vaccine “cocktails” are controversial even among medical experts when dispensed to children at ever-younger ages.
Now that “hate crimes” laws have been expanded to include whatever is politically incorrect at the moment, does government have carte blanche to employ everything from Taser-style “stun guns” to LRADs on citizen-protesters going to and from their destinations? Is there any line in the sand that cannot be crossed in the Age of Terrorism?
This is not to imply that the Taser-type “stun gun” (essentially electroshock weapons or “neuro-muscular incapacitators”) doesn’t have a place in law enforcement. Despite its potential for abuse — especially if set to a high level (called “drive stun”) — it beats shooting what often turns out to be an unarmed person or, worse, an innocent bystander, a frequent mistake when chasing a suspect. For that reason, many average folks want smaller versions for self-protection.
But LRADs are in a completely different category. There is no “lower” setting that’s effective. Once local law enforcement starts applying that level of intimidation on peaceful dissention — over health care, abortion, gays in the military, the Iraq War, homeschooling, federal land grabs in the Southwest, or whatever — then a precedent has been set for stun guns and other high-tech wizardry at the slightest provocation. Take, for example, a driver heatedly disputing a ticket for a seat-belt violation with a police officer. In the past, arguing might have earned the driver another citation for disorderly conduct. Would a good “tasering” now suffice?
It’s bad enough when a majority of citizens balk over how law-enforcement resources are spent, to no avail — such as roadways littered with an obstacle course of speed bumps and misrepresented “traffic safety” equipment like speed and red-light cameras, which most officials admit are purely for revenue enhancement. As if to add insult to injury, however, motorcycle gangs routinely crisscross over six lanes of traffic at 110 mph on the Washington, DC Capital Beltway’s Maryland side, terrorizing drivers at precisely the same hour every Saturday evening, without so much as a police helicopter assigned to catch the perpetrators, expensive electronic billboards flashing “AGGRESSIVE DRIVER IMAGING” notwithstanding.
Schools arbitrarily place aspirin on their “zero tolerance” lists; six-year-olds are called on the carpet for “sexual harassment” if they plant an endearing peck on a little girl’s face; and humiliation is rained down upon unsuspecting innocents for all sorts of silly offenses that in no way curbs dangerous miscreants. Shoppers must present a drivers’ license, address, and phone number to purchase an occasional box of Sudafed, the primary ingredient for which (pseudoephedrine) is somehow included in the Patriot Act, according to signs in local pharmacies. Unified prescription databases take aim at patients recovering from surgery (supposedly to catch prescription abusers), while open-air drug markets are avoided by police like the plague.
Government keeps pushing the envelope against the acquiescent, and always with the same justification: If you’ve nothing to hide, you won’t mind.
Except that people do mind. Most of the nuisance regulations and impositions cooked up over the past 20 years have crossed from inconvenience to harassment. We do not need protection from a few nitwits who want a “high” from sneeze remedies! We want to be defended against real predators.
The use of LRADs against folks exercising their constitutional rights is just one more in a long list of oversteps by government. It’s time for Americans to take back their prerogatives, beginning in local elections. Never accept a non-contested race. Reject candidates who fail to publicize their positions. Most politicians start locally, steadily padding their résumés for higher profile positions. Unless we nip excesses of power where they first appear, the “oversteps” of nobodies suddenly leap onto the national stage, where overnight, they become goosesteps.
Beverly K. Eakman, retired from the Justice Dept., is a lecturer, columnist, and the author of four books on mental health issues, data-trafficking, culture, and education. Her latest work is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers, 2007).
It has been clear to me for years that the political organizations that are the employers of the law enforcement personell clearly support the big brother scenario and federal trainning and expertise. It is my hope that LE will come down on the side of the constitution and not big brother otherwise the complete fall of the American experiment will be emminent. Swampy
Written by Beverly K. Eakman
Monday, 05 October 2009 14:00
We’ve all heard the expressions “mission creep” and “slippery slope.” But a front page headline in last week’s Washington Times, "DHS helps local police buy military-style sonic device," brings new meaning to these terms. If you’re an aficionado of spy thrillers and sci-fi novels, you may already be aware of Long-Range Acoustical Devices. LRADs are used to disperse militant crowds and enemy squadrons by emitting a piercing sound dangerous (and painful) enough to permanently damage hearing and temporarily distort vision.
Most people familiar with this high-tech instrument assume that its use is confined to violent mobs, looters, and enemy combatants in war zones.
Not any more.
Thanks to Department of Homeland Security grants, local police departments around the country are ordering these devices, and they have already been used at some of last summer’s more spirited town-hall meetings on health care. According to the manufacturer — American Technology Corporation (ATC), based in San Diego — they exist solely to “influence [people’s] behavior and gain compliance.”
Well, that’s comforting.
Using a military-grade weapon that permanently damages hearing to “influence behavior” and “gain compliance” is a far cry from crowd control.
When we think about crowd control, most of us imagine barriers, barricades, and belt-like stanchions keeping long lines of people in queue. Or, for riot situations, we think of smoke grenades, tear gas, batons, and foam bullets aimed at maintaining order in the wake of a natural disaster; curbing hyped-up students who hurl rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails at the behest of professional agitators, injuring innocent bystanders; and battling war-zone insurgents infamous for wearing improvised explosives (IEDs).
To find that Homeland Security, ostensibly formed to protect Americans from foreign terrorists, is actively encouraging local police to crush dissent by inflicting grievous bodily harm on average citizens, steps over the line of acceptability.
Make no mistake — a grant is a form of “encouragement.” Every year, government agencies and private foundations disseminate booklets filled with wish-lists of desired projects, complete with descriptions of the coveted end result and the amount of grant money available to the successful applicant. For example, the U.S. Department of Education might float a grant entitled “TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION,” among other projects. The U.S. Department of Defense might entitle another “RIOT DISPERSAL.” Contenders throw their hat in the ring based on their expertise in the field. The “prize” (i.e., the grant or contract) is awarded on the basis of cost, uniqueness, and reputation, among other criteria. But in soliciting competitors, the project itself is legitimized.
According to Wikipedia, LRADs are high-pitched, high-frequency “cannons” which, at maximum level, emit tones of 146 dBSPL (1,000 W/m²) at 1 meter, a level that is capable of permanently damaging hearing, and way above the human threshold of pain (120–140 dB).
Originally developed for the U.S. Navy’s use in combat zones abroad, this tool of war is increasingly becoming a fixture in local law enforcement agencies, although ATC wouldn’t release a list to the Times. A few cities, however, are known to have them — e.g., San Diego, Pittsburgh, New York, and Miami.
What makes LRADs more worrisome than earlier riot-control gear is, first, the permanence of the damage and, second, the resemblance to outright torture. Even this might be tolerable to some, were it being used to thwart real terrorists, mass murderers, fire-bombers, and snipers, or even to subdue and recapture violent convicts. But police placing LRADs at contentious town-hall meetings broaches entirely new territory. It is only a matter of time — and not much time — before unthinkable weapons are unleashed to break up peaceful demonstrators armed with nothing more than signs, T-shirts, and slogans. Consider:
In November 2007, the State of Maryland employed what amounts to terror tactics on otherwise peaceful parents who didn’t want their children vaccinated for fear of autism. They were worried, and properly so, about little kids getting too many vaccines at one sitting. Nevertheless, the youngsters were herded into a Prince George’s County courthouse, guarded by armed personnel with attack dogs. Inside, the children were forcibly vaccinated under orders from the State Attorney General, thereby stripping otherwise compliant citizens of any right to decide how they wished to protect their offspring from infectious diseases. Health authorities even threatened to jail parents for up to thirty days if they continued to refuse, thereby suppressing both public discussion and dissent. Never mind that vaccine “cocktails” are controversial even among medical experts when dispensed to children at ever-younger ages.
Now that “hate crimes” laws have been expanded to include whatever is politically incorrect at the moment, does government have carte blanche to employ everything from Taser-style “stun guns” to LRADs on citizen-protesters going to and from their destinations? Is there any line in the sand that cannot be crossed in the Age of Terrorism?
This is not to imply that the Taser-type “stun gun” (essentially electroshock weapons or “neuro-muscular incapacitators”) doesn’t have a place in law enforcement. Despite its potential for abuse — especially if set to a high level (called “drive stun”) — it beats shooting what often turns out to be an unarmed person or, worse, an innocent bystander, a frequent mistake when chasing a suspect. For that reason, many average folks want smaller versions for self-protection.
But LRADs are in a completely different category. There is no “lower” setting that’s effective. Once local law enforcement starts applying that level of intimidation on peaceful dissention — over health care, abortion, gays in the military, the Iraq War, homeschooling, federal land grabs in the Southwest, or whatever — then a precedent has been set for stun guns and other high-tech wizardry at the slightest provocation. Take, for example, a driver heatedly disputing a ticket for a seat-belt violation with a police officer. In the past, arguing might have earned the driver another citation for disorderly conduct. Would a good “tasering” now suffice?
It’s bad enough when a majority of citizens balk over how law-enforcement resources are spent, to no avail — such as roadways littered with an obstacle course of speed bumps and misrepresented “traffic safety” equipment like speed and red-light cameras, which most officials admit are purely for revenue enhancement. As if to add insult to injury, however, motorcycle gangs routinely crisscross over six lanes of traffic at 110 mph on the Washington, DC Capital Beltway’s Maryland side, terrorizing drivers at precisely the same hour every Saturday evening, without so much as a police helicopter assigned to catch the perpetrators, expensive electronic billboards flashing “AGGRESSIVE DRIVER IMAGING” notwithstanding.
Schools arbitrarily place aspirin on their “zero tolerance” lists; six-year-olds are called on the carpet for “sexual harassment” if they plant an endearing peck on a little girl’s face; and humiliation is rained down upon unsuspecting innocents for all sorts of silly offenses that in no way curbs dangerous miscreants. Shoppers must present a drivers’ license, address, and phone number to purchase an occasional box of Sudafed, the primary ingredient for which (pseudoephedrine) is somehow included in the Patriot Act, according to signs in local pharmacies. Unified prescription databases take aim at patients recovering from surgery (supposedly to catch prescription abusers), while open-air drug markets are avoided by police like the plague.
Government keeps pushing the envelope against the acquiescent, and always with the same justification: If you’ve nothing to hide, you won’t mind.
Except that people do mind. Most of the nuisance regulations and impositions cooked up over the past 20 years have crossed from inconvenience to harassment. We do not need protection from a few nitwits who want a “high” from sneeze remedies! We want to be defended against real predators.
The use of LRADs against folks exercising their constitutional rights is just one more in a long list of oversteps by government. It’s time for Americans to take back their prerogatives, beginning in local elections. Never accept a non-contested race. Reject candidates who fail to publicize their positions. Most politicians start locally, steadily padding their résumés for higher profile positions. Unless we nip excesses of power where they first appear, the “oversteps” of nobodies suddenly leap onto the national stage, where overnight, they become goosesteps.
Beverly K. Eakman, retired from the Justice Dept., is a lecturer, columnist, and the author of four books on mental health issues, data-trafficking, culture, and education. Her latest work is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers, 2007).
