7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization By Radley Balko Posted: 07/10/2013 3:57 pm EDT | Updated: 07/10/2013 7:37 pm EDT "There were signs that President Barack Obama might rein in the mass militarization of America's police forces after he won the White House. Policing is primarily a local issue, overseen by local authorities. But beginning in the late 1960s with President Richard Nixon, the federal government began instituting policies that gave federal authorities more power to fight the drug trade, and to lure state and local policymakers into the anti-crime agenda of the administration in charge. These policies got a boost during Ronald Reagan's presidency, and then another during President Bill Clinton's years. Under President George W. Bush, all of those anti-drug policies continued, but were supplemented by new war on terrorism endeavors -- yet more efforts to make America's cops look, act and fight like soldiers. "But Obama might have been different. This, after all, was the man who, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004, declared the war on drugs an utter failure. As Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum wrote in a 2011 critique of Obama's drug policy: "Obama stood apart from hard-line prohibitionists even when he began running for president. In 2007 and 2008, he bemoaned Americaâs high incarceration rate, warned that the racially disproportionate impact of drug prohibition undermines legal equality, advocated a âpublic healthâ approach to drugs emphasizing treatment and training instead of prison, repeatedly indicated that he would take a more tolerant position regarding medical marijuana than George W. Bush, and criticized the Bush administration for twisting science to support policy -- a tendency that is nowhere more blatant than in the governmentâs arbitrary distinctions among psychoactive substances." "Indeed, in his first interview after taking office, Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, said that the administration would be toning down the martial rhetoric that had dominated federal drug policy since the Nixon years. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," Kerlikowske told The Wall Street Journal. "We're not at war with people in this country." "This was an notable break from previous administrations. Rhetoric does matter, and for a generation in the U.S..." More>>
more reasons to conclude the Federal govt is too large and Obamas policies are destroying america. thanks for the post.
I don't think Ricter realizes that this is a hit piece on Obama even coming from the HuffPo. Here is the conclusion from the article. Just more rhetoric and lies from Obama: Obama the candidate made some unusually frank and critical statements about the drug war, incarceration, and the criminal justice system. His drug czar then showed some rare insight into the dangers of war rhetoric when discussing domestic policing. (But) Obama the president has been more of the same, and in some cases worse.
Agreed. And I'll thank mr Orlando beach for the further evidence showing just how overdue a revolution in America is.
I think he realizes it just fine. I am hoping that he has finally decided to move from supporting his "team" (as he likes to put it) to standing on principles he believes in. If that is the case, expect to see some criticism from him against both republicans AND the administration. Bravo, Ricter. The rest of you should encourage this in him, not throw it in his face.
In other words, Obama lied. Those that lean left are SLOWLY coming to grips with the FACT that Obama is not a left of center democrat. Obama is a radical leftist. Radical leftist core belief is oppression of the people. That is the only way they can govern. Sane people won't accept their tyrannical form of governing, hence the need for a militarized police force.
This article makes me think Obama is quite a bit farther right than I thought. Maybe in your mind moving "left" necessarily means moving towards totalitarianism, but not in my mind.
Totalitarianism can be either right (think fascist) or Left (think Soviet Union), in my opinion. Instead of focusing on which side of the political spectrum it is, just conclude that it is bad and not where we want to go.