Comments for On the MIAC "Who's a scary militiaman?" report

On the MIAC "Who's a scary militiaman?" report

2009-03-24T13:32:55Z

So, the Missouri Intelligence Analysis Center (MIAC, a division of the state police) has published a report called "The Modern Militia Movement." I've been silent on this publicly for a while because the document in question has a security marking on it - and I don't like to fiddle with the possible emanations and penumbras of my clearance. Now that it's in the wild, I can at least talk about it. But I'm still not going to publish it here.

That hasn't stopped a lot of others from talking about it, a lot. And my email box has been full of questions about it. I've got some experience here, what with having been a Military Support to the Civil Authority (MSCA) planner back on active duty and there's that Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. And a long time ago I was even on the patrol roster of a police department.

So after the shock and righteous sputtering of outrage, what have we here?

I won't go so far as to say a "standard" Law Enforcement intelligence product, I've been out of that side of things too long - but I will say, there is nothing new here. This kind of document has been in production in law enforcement circles for a long time - all the way back to Bobby Peel's London Bobbies.

It is usually a product of national-level law enforcement, some big states, and some cities, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, who have police forces the size of small armies and the budgets to match it.

If anyone thinks this is a new and disturbing development - Google COINTELPRO. There's lots of room to discuss the philosophical thrust of this document, and wrap that in a good discussion of the paramilitarization of law enforcement that has been largely driven by the war on drugs - but that's a subject too big for a blog post on a day where I have a full schedule of hair lighting ceremonies to attend.

Lots of electrons have sparkled angrily on the tone and conclusions of the report - I'll just add what I have to say that is new to the discussion that I've seen. I'm not so much mad at the conclusions as I'm terribly disappointed with shallow analysis bereft of context and perspective.

There is *no* sense of perspective. No analysis of the pervasiveness and extent of the potential threat, and it lumps a lot of people into a lot of bins, turning nearly half the population into potential threats, without really giving the officer reading it any tools to help discriminate the threat - and at the same time, it gives officers ammunition to over-react and potentially make a simple situation worse.

Many of the people who read this blog would qualify for special attention/concern, in some measure or another, as a potential militiaman - to an officer who has *only* this report to go by. Since it picks a convenient target, especially when it conflates the White Supremacists in the mix with people who have rather significantly different politics, it's not received much press coverage - though it has gleaned some. MSM pressies reading it shrugged their shoulders and said, "Yeah, sounds about right to me" and moved on.

However, flip this over to another group - I imagine a similar, yet much larger storm would erupt from the Left if the MIAC ever publishes (or an existing one leaks into the wild) a report that said anyone with Anarchy paraphernalia is a potential terrorist, or that being a Puerto Rican nationalist is grounds for close observation, or... flying a Mexican flag... As it is now, flying a Mexican flag, with the US flag flying upside down (one of those signs police officers were given) is pretty much treated as protected political speech and almost (at least the Mexican flag flying instead of the US flag) as something to be applauded. Clearly, context matters, but the paper provides little to no framing for that context.

To me, as I read it, I felt like I was reading a mediocre college paper, written for a professor with pretty low expectations, by a student who was busy writing to confirm his or her beliefs, not examine a topic.

I'm not expecting a footnoted thesis, but the author throws out a lot of generalizations of the militia movement, including lots of pop psy goobledygook about white males feeling all disenfranchised and banding together to defend their turf, etc, using the ever-so-useful toss away cover of "academics contend" without even a modifier of "some academics contend" because we can find other academics who will contend otherwise, and many of those who don't, actually make their contentions with more nuance than the straw-man hamfistedly built for this report. Just listing recommended sources for further study would have been useful, rather than just using derived positional authority to assert truths that may simply not be... true. Oh, all the individual assertions in the paper can probably be defended on an individual basis, but, again, bereft of context sense of scale, the paper paints not with a broad brush, but with a airport fire engine foam spray nozzle.

We have the sort of thing I've come expect as the result of the "Federalizing" and militarization of the police function in the US. Which is a double-edged blade, with goodness and badness.

The goodness has been a real increase in police training levels, due to good work performed and funded under federal auspices, in addition to the work of large, well-run police forces, that has led to a significant decrease in police officer deaths due to bad tactics and poor situational awareness, with absolute numbers dropping even as the population increases. That's a positive thing.

But it comes with a price. It comes at the expense of a hardening of police attitudes towards the public, as, in many cases, police are taught that in order to not lose control you have to impose control - and that is usually in ways that piss off the innocent, or make the minor offender feel he's being treated like a violent felon. From the police perspective, it makes sense, and they figure you, as the citizen, should just shut up and take it and things will wrap up and you can move on.

Of course, if you've been in a traffic stop where you got pulled over for speeding (especially at night - which is the most dangerous times to cops) and feel you were treated like a felon, you know how it makes you feel about the interaction, even though the intent was, in fact, to keep both of you safe. Hard to do with the cold knot of distress, anger and fear there, and Officer Friendly... isn't.

Lots of factors, good and bad, have led to the militarization of the police, but that's outside the scope of this post.

But this report, well, had it come to me for approval, I would have sent it back for a re-do.

Comment from Jim on 2009-03-26

2009-03-27T01:34:27Z

Boy's you don't know if big brother is watching you, unless you are a little paranoid. This memo mentioned some other stuff other then religion, like american politics, belief in the constitution, that you swore an oath to, and stuff like happening here in missouri, like feds stopping at houses and checking on what you are ordering those cases of ammo for?, don't they target shoot, or help out around bases for traffic control, forgeting tyhe limits of the job, and oath again. And don't trust the cops around a college town here, too many kids end up away from their homes overnight for not having dope, and having short packages, like in planted materials.

Comment from Maggie on 2009-03-24

2009-03-25T03:49:24Z

Second AW1Tim - the police are not your friends, lol. My parents taught my that from a very young age and I taught my sons. Although my younger son still had to learn it the hard way.

short version - guy my age drinks every night, hard, and urinates off of his deck. One night two 20 year olds are passing by. Words are exchanged, fists fly, the two young men flee. Moments later, my son comes through, the guy yells, my son is confused and continues on his way. Cops come, drunk names the two 20 years old boys AND my son. Next morning drunk sobers up, says "Oh, the 3rd kid didn't fight with me, didn't witness the fight, I was confused" Cops arrest my son anyway because they expected him to turn on the other two (all four people know each other fairly well). Worked out ok because when my son didn't roll and the judge heard the whole sloppy story he found all three not guilty. He also reprimanded the police and ADA.

Now he knows - the police are not your friends.

Comment from olga on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T23:23:29Z

Armeggedon Rex,
the 2nd, obviously.

You cannot argue your consitutional rights with the LEO, you only can do it in front of a judge, which means you are spending at least a night in jail. And by "arguing" I do NOT mean mouthing the officer off. You must be always polite and respectful.

Case at point:
In Jersey, the LEOs KNOW (there were at least 3 lawsuits against them for doing so and PD lost them) that if you are permitted to own a firearm at both your point of departure and destination, you are allowed by the FEDERAL law to cross the state lines and legally travel even through the state that requires a protracted licensing process just to possess a firearm at your house/business and not for transporting (a special license). They KNOW it and still if you are stopped on the Turnpike and you refuse to allow them to search your vehicle, you are getting arrested and your car is getting searched anyway and then you spend the night in jail arrested on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm until the next day the judge throws the whole thing out and apologizes to you. If it is Friday, you spend the weekend in jail. The Jersey LEOs KNOW it and they still continue the practice.

I have friends who are LEOs and they all great people - when we are having a friendly conversation. However, I will not be "friendly" with them when it is business, it will be the license and registration and insurance and NO VOLUNTEERING OF ANY INFORMATION.

Sorry, but they have only themselves to blame for this kind of situation.

That is not to say that I did not or won't offer an assistance when I believe the officer might need one.

Comment from Josh on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T22:52:19Z

Sometimes I see Priuses with Obama stickers and I am tempted towards vandalism.

Of course, that's MOSTLY because I am tempted to vandalize ALL Priuses and the stickers are just the metaphorical straw...

Comment from MCart on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T22:46:35Z

This is really just one MORE reason I don't wear my political opinions on my vehicles. I like my truck. It's new. I've had vehicles damaged before by 'peace loving hippies' who dissagreed with my right to voice my opinion. If they would agree to do it while I'm standing there, I'd be ok with it (so to speak), but every time my vehicle has been damaged, there was no one to be seen to take responsibility for it.

Now if we have reached a point where it might, maybe, someday result in JBT's kicking in my door in the middle of the night... well, I'm going to err on the side of caution, and make sure my 'vote' counts.

Comment from Armeggedon Rex on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T21:03:28Z

MCart:

I don't advocate swaggering and mouthing off at a sworn peace officer, but, by lowering your profile, you have nuckled under to the man!

Just kidding, sort of!

Seriously though, bumperstickers on your car....posting on the web....
I thought we were free to speak in the U.S. It is a specifically enumerated God given right! If you read the Federalist Papers, controvertial political speech is exactly the kind of speech the founders intended to protect! Not pornographers!
If you feel so intimidated by peace officers that you're afraid to speak your mind, you're either a coward, or your constitutionaly guaranteed God given rights are being violated.

Which is it?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T20:54:24Z

Grumpy - I could have written that after-action report, except I might have been even more tart than the State's Attorney was.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T20:11:25Z

I am not here to change anybody's opinion, but an incident happened in Dec 2006. There was a good history on the web.

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/01/02/i-hate-these-kinds-of-stories/

[Link fixed - the Armorer] Do yourself a favor, read all of the links including the final after action report. In the spirit of transparency, *"Yes, I do comment. Did I write everything I was thinking? Out of respect for the Armorer and Lex, the answer is no. Am I satisfied with everything, again, NO!"*

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T19:59:48Z

I blogged about this myself almost 2 wks ago. MIAC & MSHP uncritically bought the whole ADL schtick & accepted left-over drivel from the 1st Clinton Admin as current and the authors as SME's. Must be no adult supervision at MIAC, or they wouldn't be so gullible. It's all these Fusion Centers voraciously vacuuming up intel on us and promiscuously sharing it I worry about.

Comment from MCart on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T16:56:14Z

The dissonance between how the public increasingly fears and mistrusts The Police(TM), and the intentions and behavior of actual real life(TM) police officers I personally know is shocking to me.

Not a one of them, in the bluest city of the bluest county, in Washington State, advocates stripping law abiding citizens of personal firearms, assault weapons, or curtailing places we can legally conceal-carry. Yet when there's a press conference with our toad of a mayor, there's tons of officers lined up behind in support. I can't tell where these political animals in police uniforms come from. I can't find any in the wild. Who is this guy that wrote this report? Never met anyone in the Law Enforcement business that sounds like him.

It's all very confusing.

Only thing I can suggest is, be courteous, polite, KNOW your rights, and assert them. You don't have to be a jerk about it. Police Officers have enough leeway to make you pretty miserable if you fail the attitude test. But by all means, do know your rights, do not surrender them. (And don't assert any rights you THINK you have, but you don't)

As for these 'lists' I'm just going to keep drawing down my profile. There are no stickers on my truck. I'm posting a lot less online, and I'm a lot more cautious about letting people know who I am. Heck, the e-mail address above doesn't even work anymore, I don't know why I type it out. Habit I guess.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T16:02:31Z

Well,

I have learned through personal experience that a policeman, ANY law enforcement person, is NEVER your friend, ever. Every single LEO is an agent of the government, and, as such, cannot be trusted to act 8in any other form but the government's interest. I will never answer any questions, or cooperate in any way with ANY LEO ever again, aside from that required, IE: License and registration and proof of insurance. Ask me a question mr. LEO? You'll get absolute silence. If detained, my entire conversation will be "I am invoking my miranda rights and I wish an attorney". That will be it.

I was the victim of mistaken identity. I was arrested at gunpoint, by several officers, thrown to the ground and cuffed, shoved into the back of a cruiser, all while my wife and children looked on in horror and fear, and while the LEO's all high-fived each other. In less than 1 hour, they KNEW they had the wrong man, heck the license plate, vehicle type and color were wrong too. Yet they kept me incarcerated for thee days, without access to an attorney, a phone call, or the medications I required. It was a three day weekend, you see, and LEO functions are "different" up here where I live. They refused to release me without a Judge's say so, even though they KNEW from fingerprints, and pictures that they HAD THE WRONG MAN. These guys were acting like speed-addled adrenaline junkies, swaggering like the narcissists they are. I had to wait from friday evening until tuesday to be released. Then, they intentionally waited until after 5pm to release me, so i would miss the evening bus (the Jail was 50 miles from my home). I had to hitchhike home, after dark, because the vehicle was still impounded. THAT took a week to get released, and I had to threaten to sue them in order not to have to pay towing nd impound fees.

    I now have an arrest record. In my state, those are NEVER expunged. You can get a pardon, or a commutation, and a note about the outcome of any trial, but arrest records are permanent and public. The law here forbids them from being cleared.

    So yeah, I have no love lost for cops. There are too many, with too many heavy weapons and special rules and exemptions. If you want to carry an assault weapon and wear body armor, join the military.

    respects,

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T15:45:17Z

I'm not going to disagree with you, Olga, it does seem like very scary stuff. A report like this IS something that needs to be known and considered and watched.

What I'm concerned about, however, is making it something it probably is not. Make too much of a leap as to what could happen leads, IMHO, too close to Alex Jones and FEMA Camps territory, Or the 9/11 Truthers. (My apologies, but I believe there are too many holes in those theories, and they end up sounding much like kooks.) If people make too much noise over things that are not explicitly there, then fewer will listen when the real trouble starts.

The fact is, there is opportunities for Officer abuses at ALL levels of law enforcement, from parking and speeding tickets, all the way up to murder and terrorist investigations. And don't even get me started on municiple 'codes enforcement.' At some level, though, there must be at least an implied trust in the departments as a whole, and we must rely on internal and external oversight to keep those abuses in check and to an absolute minimum. Without that trust, there is complete chaos.

One of the largest problems the fact the general public does not pay attention to things beyond their own little world of themselves and their own interests. Even in the recent election, so-called the most historical election in our lifetimes, turnout, while higher than recent averages, was still low compared to registered voters. If it doesn't affect them personally, and by that I mean immediate measurable effect, they just don't seem to care.

Comment from olga on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T15:20:52Z

My issue is that it takes a very careful read of and throwing out of the leaps of faith from this 'badly written college paper' in order to arrive to the final destination - "Hey, if you see certain signs during a traffic stop or investigation, maybe you ought to be a little more on your toes." There is no guarantee that the LEOs will have the time and opportunity to do this kind of reading and parcing, thus resulting in the incidents of the MO guy who got stopped for the bumper sticker and then had the USSS 'visit' his house.
I am not being paranoid but acceptance of this kind of report for wide circulation in the LEO circles leads to the eventual banning of all privately own firearms and limiting free speech and freedom of association.
VERY BAD

Comment from Robert on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T15:16:01Z

.
The 'mean streets' are a fact, and if 'militarizing' the police equates to riot control training then I'm all for the effort. What I object to is the evaluation of the threat axis ... Ron Paul stickers? Bloggers who revere the founding fathers and Constitution? This is hard to accept.

Even more disturbing is that this is not some strange aberration of the current administration's agenda. No black helicopters here ... we're talking about state and local law enforcement agendas ... what's up with that?

SENATOR Obama said in December, 2008 that "Dissent is not unpatriotic." So what has changed?

If there is a threat to public order, it is indeed anarchic in nature ... yoots in hoodies and masks that we see on TV destroying public property and looting shops, with 'community organizers' on the sidelines, cheering them on.

The focus of local LE personnel must be directed to protect the local public, and certainly not by the sycophants in Washington, DC ... the most snivelling collection of grasping whiners ever assembled under one flag in the history of Wetern Civilation.
.

Comment from Dave on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T15:11:21Z

"After all these decades, why has nobody forced the government to re-evaluate their methods from the ground up, and start examining entirely new ways to shut down the drug trade?" Goverment actual re-evaluate a program to see if it is effective. You must be kidding me, the only reason a goverment program does not work is because it does not have enough funding and at least double if not quadruple the budget will be sure to get the results needed. I will leave out the military, but the same things happens there I am sure.

How many programs are actually killed? rare to non-existant. The Rural Electrification program is still in business. The department of agriculture is larger than the number of farmers. We could run this list for weeks and not find the end.

Comment from Josh on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T14:41:39Z

I really dislike the paramilitarization of the police force...and it's not primarily the idea of SWAT teams in armored trucks that bother me. They have a perfectly good purpose to them. What bothers me is things like unmarked police cars used for patrolling the streets. The idea of hiding yourself (as in unmarked cars) or using heavy weapons and armor makes perfect sense, and is in fact rather obligatory, when you are trying to stop a violent or dangerous person who is in the process of hurting citizens or something like that. But when you do things like patrol the streets in unmarked cars, you are treating the population as a whole as "the enemy", guilty until proven innocent. Camouflage (in this example, trying to blend in with traffic, rather than trying to blend in with bushes) is a tool used by militaries to attempt to gain an advantage while attacking an enemy...so why should the police be set up to ambush those they are supposed to "protect and serve"?

Also, the whole "War on Drugs" thing bothers me for two reasons...first, that it's NOT a war, it's an overall strategy, and it really bothers me when people label things as "wars" just because it sounds exciting. Same with the "War on Terror". Also, why is it not the "War on Terrorism", does this campaign also include preventing moviegoers from being scared when they watch "Poltergeist"?

Sorry, anyway, the other big problem is that whatever we are doing, despite the endless tons of drugs and piles of money that have been captured, we're not winning this "war". After all these decades, why has nobody forced the government to re-evaluate their methods from the ground up, and start examining entirely new ways to shut down the drug trade?

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-03-24

2009-03-24T14:03:25Z

I've heard various talk-hosts going on and on about this for several days. Having been burned too many times by reactionary statements, I did find the orginal doc and read it through. And John, you are right, it IS very vague and general, although somewhat true in some situations.

And something is does NOT do, in contradiction to what some talkers may have implied, is recommend certain points of action, I.E., follow them home and rifle through the mailbox for 'subsversive literature' or take the license down for reporting to superiors. From what I gathered, ti was simply a bit of history and context to what seems to be an historical 'midwest' type of so-called militia member, like the McVeighs of the world, or way back when, the Covanent (late-80s, IIRC, and a patrolman got gunned down by a member with a hail of fire for a routine traffic stop in south-central MO).

Taking all the BigBrother garbage out of it, and leaps of logic (which of course does NOT mean there are not bad sides to the report, of course), it appears to me to be a bit of background, to help alert officers. "Hey, if you see certain signs during a traffic stop or investigation, maybe you ought to be a little more on your toes."