WASHINGTON
— Jolted by images of protesters clashing with heavily armed police
officers in Missouri, President Obama has ordered a comprehensive review
of the government’s decade-old strategy of outfitting local police departments with military-grade body armor, mine-resistant trucks, silencers and automatic rifles, senior officials say.
The
White House-led review will consider whether the government should
continue providing such equipment and, if so, whether local authorities
have sufficient training to use it appropriately, said senior
administration and law enforcement officials. The government will also
consider whether it is keeping a close enough watch on equipment
inventories, and how the weapons and other gear are used.
The
review, coupled with proposed legislation and planned congressional
hearings, opens the possibility for significant changes in Washington’s
approach to arming local law enforcement agencies. Following the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, the government regarded the police as the frontline
forces in a new war. While that role for local law enforcement is
expected to remain, changes may be ordered to the system under which
federal grants and a military surplus program have sent gear and money
to police departments, often with no strings attached, to prepare for a
terrorist attack.
America got a glimpse of that gear
over the past two weeks in Ferguson, Mo., as police officers in full
body armor rode military-style vehicles, firing tear gas and pointing
assault rifles at protesters. Like departments nationwide, the police in
the St. Louis area have been outfitted by federal grants and military
surplus.
“The
whole country and every representative and senator have seen the
visuals, and at some level, it made all of us uncomfortable,” said
Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
who will lead a hearing in September into police use of military-style
equipment. “It’s a moment where we can take a timeout and look at these
policies.”
Such reviews would have been unlikely in Washington before the Ferguson protests, which followed the shooting death
of an unarmed teenager by a police officer. For years, internal audits
have raised concerns about the management and oversight of federal
grants, but nothing until now has prompted the government to question
the wisdom behind the programs.
After
the 9/11 attacks, the government pushed billions of dollars to local
law enforcement agencies through the Department of Justice and the newly
created Department of Homeland Security. The grants paid for radios
that allowed local police and fire officials to talk to each other
during a crisis. Grants placed lifesaving equipment in ambulances and
hospitals.
Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr., in a statement released by his office on
Saturday, said this equipment “flowed to local police forces because
they were increasingly being asked to assist in counterterrorism.” But
he also said that “displays of force in response to mostly peaceful
demonstrations can be counterproductive,” and so “it makes sense to take
a look at whether military-style equipment is being acquired for the
right purposes and whether there is proper training on when and how to
deploy it.”
For
police departments, the money has paid for computers, armored vehicles,
body armor, weapons, training and more. In Washington, the only debates
were whether the George W. Bush administration was providing equipment
fast enough, and whether departments were getting their fair shares.
But
the rush to arm America’s police departments made oversight difficult.
Grant programs overlapped. Money often flowed to state governments first
before arriving in local police departments, making it hard to track. In 2009, auditors cited examples of state governments that could not verify what equipment local authorities had bought.
The
federal government also did not typically insist that local authorities
be trained on how and when to use its new equipment. In recent days,
retired military officers have bristled at the sight of police officers
in Missouri walking the streets with guns drawn, pointed at protesters.
“In the infantry, we teach ‘muzzle awareness,’ ” said Paul D. Eaton,
a retired general who previously served as the Army’s chief of infantry
at Fort Benning, Ga. “Their fingers are off the trigger. They are on
the trigger guard. The barrel is either straight down or no higher than a
45-degree angle. The effort is to declare a presence, but not to
declare you are on the offensive.”
Administration and law enforcement officials said the White House review would include an examination of training requirements.
The
review will also look at a program the Obama administration likes. The
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program is the leading
source of Justice Department money to state and local authorities. Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is a longtime supporter of the grants,
which can be used to hire police officers, expand drug task forces and
buy weapons, armor and other equipment.
Though violent crime is at its lowest level in a generation
and terrorism, despite fears and continuing global threats, remains
exceedingly rare on American soil, any effort to significantly cut
police funding would be met with sharp opposition from local and state
officials and many in Congress. Even if the political will to review the
policies exists now, it is not clear whether it will remain when
lawmakers return from vacation next month and see the midterm elections
on the horizon.
Ms.
McCaskill agreed that the military equipment had proved valuable. In
Ferguson, she said, a BearCat armored truck, paid for with $360,000 in
Homeland Security grants, helped the police escape harm amid gunfire.
And while she was critical of the police response, she said no police
officer had fired lethal weapons on protesters, even when people in the
crowd were firing.
Still,
Ms. McCaskill said, the government should be able to find a way to
ensure officer safety and keep streets safe more strategically. She said
one alternative to the current system would be to store military
equipment with the National Guard and allow the police to use it only
when needed.
The
White House review will also include scrutiny of a Pentagon program
that transfers surplus military equipment to police departments.
Congress created the program in the 1990s as a way to help the police
fight drug crime and violence. After 9/11, as the military ramped up to
fight two wars, the program grew in the name of fighting terrorism.
Lately, police departments big and small have been outfitting themselves with aircraft, night-vision goggles and trucks built to survive buried roadside bombs.
Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel is “keeping an open mind” about the program, said
Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. “He shares the
president’s concerns about any blurring of lines between the military
and local law enforcement, of course, certainly, as that concern could
lead to the use of military equipment.” Admiral Kirby noted that most of
the equipment transferred to local police by the Defense Department did
not include weapons or armored vehicles, which are bought through a
separate fund.
Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia, said he would propose legislation
putting limitations on the program, including a requirement that local
police certify that they are trained to use the equipment.
The
White House review and congressional interest come at a time when many
liberal Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans have joined forces
in calling for an end to national security policies that they see as
infringing on civil rights. Some of the lawmakers leading the fight
against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of American phone
records have spoken out against police departments that look more like
the military.
“The
images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than
traditional police action,” Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican
and likely presidential candidate, wrote last week in Time.
But
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, a member of both
the Intelligence and Homeland Security committees, dismissed that
criticism and said he had seen nothing to justify scaling back federal
police grants. He said there was no evidence that giving the police
heavy weaponry and equipment worsened the situation in Ferguson or led
to abuses elsewhere.
Mr. King said he disagreed with anyone who might say “that somehow the police are the cause of what’s wrong.”
Comments
Post a Comment