Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-business-of-war dept.

President Trump will sign an executive order to allow local police departments to receive or purchase military surplus equipment:

Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."

The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.

In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods. "Those restrictions went too far," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."

Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing "all he can to restore law and order and support our police across the country." [...] The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.

Organized gangs get to play soldier.

1033 Program.

Also at The Hill and USA Today.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:18PM (7 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:18PM (#561144) Journal

    The chaos in the cabinet is just political circus intrigue. But there is a benefit.

    We're seeing some Clinton vs. Trump comparisons here, but let's switch to Cruz vs. Trump.

    Trump's cabinet is in disarray with competing factions jostling to push each other away from the President's ear. Trump can't coordinate with Congress well at all and has attacked many Republicans in Congress. The relationship between Trump and McConnell is so bad that we've heard reporting along the lines of them not talking for weeks and shouting at each other over the phone when they have spoken. It could get worse [talkingpointsmemo.com], with a government shutdown being threatened. Trump and Paul Ryan have a lot of bad blood too.

    Compare to a hypothetical President Ted Cruz. Even though some of his Senate colleagues hate Cruz for being a snake (Trump is a lion), the guy would not have had the same unprecedented strained relationship between a Republican President and Republican Congress. Cruz would be pushing through more evangelical bullshit, whereas with Trump we get lip service here, a military trans ban there.

    The dysfunction in the Republican party right now is incredible. They can't get a proper repeal of the Affordable Care Act through despite that being an obvious #1 priority throughout the entirety of the Obama presidency. Liberals have come together as never before to oppose Trump, and Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.

    The biggest blow is the Supreme Court. Trump will have no problem picking justices as conservative as any other Republican would pick. He may get the opportunity to pick 3 of them. Especially if he gets a second term. But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:32PM (5 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:32PM (#561157)

    Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.

    I do agree that if Cruz had been elected, things would probably be even worse, with him pushing through a lot of evangelical bullshit, and in fact that's why I hope nothing happens to Trump because if Pence takes over, it'll be just like that. Pence is also a religious loony, but he's politically competent and will get a lot of shit pushed through.

    However, I'm not really seeing what you're talking about here with the DNC. It seems like the DNC is still controlled by the Clinton faction and has continually doubled-down on its BS claims about "Russian hackers!" and steadfastly refused to admit that they were the ones who lost the election due to their own (and Hillary's) actions.

    But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.

    Yeah, as I said before, I hope this doesn't happen. Pence will be much worse than Trump. Even if somehow, both Trump and Pence got taken out (double impeachment?) at the same time, it'd suck because then we'd have President Ryan, though I'm honestly not sure if that would be better or worse than our current predicament. However, a long, drawn-out impeachment process that never actually succeeds in getting rid of Trump would probably be a good thing, esp. if it's led by the Republicans in Congress: it'd make the GOP look bad, and it'd shut down the government for years potentially so nothing would get passed.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:53PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:53PM (#561177) Journal

      Sanders got within striking distance of Clinton despite opposition to him within the DNC and Clinton being considered the anointed one by the media. It was supposed to be a done deal that Clinton would get the nomination, and that the loony-looking Sanders would get a token 2-10% of the primary votes.

      Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat. A lot of shady stuff [theintercept.com] happened to tank Sanders and push Clinton through, and it pissed off the left wing of the party.

      Who is the best person to challenge Trump in 2020? Cory Booker? Who knows.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:19PM (#561192)

        Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat.

        Really? With the way the DNC has behaved all along, and also considering their historical record of running lousy candidates (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale), I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them run Hillary yet again in 2020, and lose yet again. They really do seem to be clueless.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:34AM (#561265)

          Seriously, you couldn't have gone back to Humphrey? The Dems have been running anointed ones instead of candidates actually able to engender excitement my whole life.

          I highly recommend people take the time to listen to Woody Guthrie and Phil Ochs. List to their songs and you'll very quickly realize how long this shit's been going on.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:47AM (1 child)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:47AM (#561294) Journal

        Please no -- Cory Booker is just a pharma whore. He's exactly like Clinton, but with different plumbing and skin tone. If the DNC goes the Clinton way again, I might actually have to vote for whoever the GOP challenger is, though I'd prefer to vote for someone like Sanders or barring that, a 3d party.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41PM (#561536)

          What are you talking about? Booker at least has done a couple of genuinely progressive things, such as publicly opposing the Drug War. He's no Sanders, but I wouldn't say he's exactly like Hillary; that's just ridiculous.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:34AM (#561380)

    The republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They voted to do so, knowing they could depend on Obama to veto the repeal.

    Things are now... awkward.

    Promises were made, and now Trump makes it obvious that the republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The vote to repeal will now always fall 1 or 2 votes short. The republicans voting to keep the mess are probably instructed to do so by the congressional leadership. Somebody is picked to do the job of voting "no", keeping up the lie.

    Note that the senate leadership could easily get the job done. They only need 50 votes according to our constitution, but they are operating under different rules that were self-imposed a few decades ago. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to blow away those rules, but they don't. They like being able to pretend that they simply can't find the votes.

    This is what we call the "uniparty". On most issues, the democrats and republicans cooperate to screw over the country. They pretend to battle, much like WWE wrestlers, over a few social issues (abortion, LGBT, guns...) that are easy for voters to understand. Meanwhile, complicated banking and tax and IP law gets passed with no outrage.