Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations, Immune To Oversight
New submitter thermowax sends a report on how Massachusetts SWAT teams are dodging open records requests by claiming to be corporations. From the article:
As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. ... Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.
Citizen, you will be sent to a re-education camp. Cease resisting and comply with the security officer's request.
What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.
security through obscurity at his finest, Hail America's Corporations Now or be SWATed
So, if they're not government entities, then they're private entities, and as such not entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, right? So if they damage a house or hurt an individual, they're on the hook for damages (and criminal actions), and can't claim immunity from the courts...
in history class in a thousand years. That one by one, "private" corporations installed themselves, cancer-like, into the public money stream while at the same time claiming to be "private".
While the population 3D printed coffee cups and masturbated to Mars fantasies.
What a clever way to get around constitutional limits on governmental powers! And the 501(c)(3) thing is a stroke of genius; now taxes cannot be used to rein in their power. The latest court rulings deregulating campaign finance rules could be the final stroke that turns this type of organization into an untouchable omnipotent authority. (Not trying to run afoul of Godwin's Law, but think along the lines of Nazi Germany in the late 30's/early 40's.
If that's how they want to play it, the solution is simple. No taxpayer funding.
Wasn't "No taxation without representation" coined in (what became) the Commonwealth?
Charge 'em with breaking and entering, assault and battery, and conspiracy to do those things. Guys, are you sure you're not with the government?
Police abusing the law to escape accountability. If anyone didn't see that coming I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
They want the monetary and security advantages of being paid with taxpayer money without having to comply with the legal requirements of a taxpayer funded government organization. If they are allowed to get away with that, would anybody here like to guess here where it will go next?
FBI raid and arrest everyone in the SWAT team, put them in prison and charge them with Racketeering. Do it very public, invite the media and make these scumbags a lesson to cops across the country that they work FOR the citizens and must act as "public servants" and not a street gang.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ahem.....
"I've got a bad feeling about this"....
Thank you...
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
that will create a private army paid for by the rich, right here on US soil. The simple solution is, no open records = no policing powers.
Government officials and organizations have immunity from lawsuits for the most part, however private corporations are not. I'm sure there are any number of potential lawsuits that could be brought against them. I'd say it would be fun to watch them try to dance around the subject but it's not, really. It's sickening.
Part of their "funding" comes from the stuff they seize in "drug raids". They dont even have to charge anyone for drug related crimes.
Now they're private police forces and not subject to oversight?
Fine, then they're not law enforcement officers, and have far fewer room to operate legally, and any deaths and the like means they go to jail, right?
Exactly. If you're private corporations, you're not cops, you're vigilantes and operating outside of the law. If you're officers of the law, you're subject to oversight.
And, once again, the 'police' have no interest in upholding the law, just covering their own asses.
If this doesn't get tossed out by a court or the law makers, this is a terrible precedent. They're asking for the right to do anything they want without oversight or responsibility.
And it sounds like they've got a long history of doing things which they'd prefer to keep hidden from oversight -- like accidentally killing people.
In the immortal words of NWA ... Fuck tha police.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
people with guns and flashbang grenades.
This is basically the plot of Continuum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(TV_series)], which is currently in its third season.
I know this is a tangent, but there is a pretty good intersection of interests here on Slashdot between science-fiction and rights of the people versus government. The show makes it interesting because the viewer is meant to basically hate both sides, plus it has time-travel.
*shrug*
fear generating words on a (virtual) page, violent (abuse victim) psychos on a rampage, slowing our advance to our new age of new clear options.. is anyone bleeding from the 'story'? see you there
OCP runs the cops.
It's that simple. If they are not properly commissioned law enforcement officers then they are impersonating police and it is perfectly okay to answer deadly force with deadly force especially when they break into your home.
The lack of compeitition... that problems on the government's side for allowing it. Actually, the majority of the fault is with the local government for allowing this. From what I've read, the police are legally right. If the state doesn't like it, they should change they're own laws, not fault a company for abiding by them. Now, that being said... they should definetly change the laws/situation... because police with no oversight is a very bad idea.
If you are not a cop then I'm toto the flying fluffy dog.
Surely since the Supreme Court just ruled that Aereo is cable TV for the purpose of regulation, these law enforcement councils are government for the purpose of open records laws.
Massachusetts has pretty strict gun laws. If this is a private corporation, well, I don't think its members should be having fully automatic weapons with 30 round mags.
Mind you, I don't think ANY police should have weapons that the general public can't, but that's a separate issue.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If they are "private corporations", then they are subject to discovery and private lawsuits, recovery of damages, and all that good stuff. That's assuming, of course, that private corporations can even do this stuff.
(Also remember that this blatant abuse of power comes from the heart of American liberalism, Massachusetts.)
If they are not law enforcement, they are a private company that is assaulting and kidnapping citizens.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There are a few private organizations in Massachusetts that need some records liberated.
Good luck with that. Either they are performing raids under the direction of the government, in which case they are acting in their capacity as government police officers, or they are breaking and entering in their capacity as corporate employees. As a criminal, I would welcome this change as these raids will become giant lawsuits.
Such a coincidence, just today I read this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... "10 Facts About The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know" "The number of SWAT team raids in the United States every year is now more than 25 times higher than it was back in 1980."
I work for local government (in a different state). A number of cities and counties around the state have banded together to manage custom software projects, etc, using a legal device known as a "Joint Powers Agreement".
The JPA creates a legal entity, much the same way that a contract creates a trust. This entity is essentially a delegation of authority from the various local government entities that constitute it, so it has some strange properties. For example, it has bank accounts, employs staff, rents an office, etc, but does not file tax returns.
It also, as far as our lawyers can tell, is exempt from all data practices laws. This isn't the end run you might seem to think. If a data request comes in to the entity, the staff there tells them to contact the relevant member entity. The requestor can then ask me (for example), and I am obligated to collect the data from my systems, and from the organization.
Basically, the legal reasoning is that the entity doesn't own anything, it merely possesses things on the behalf of the member entities. This is also why it doesn't file tax returns.
I don't know the legal situation in Massachusetts, but these are principles that derive from western jurisprudence in general, rather than from the laws of my state, so I suspect it is pretty similar. No idea where the 501(c)(3) thing comes in. I suspect that is more about being able to accept donations than anything else.
Personally, I think the citizens of that state should ask their legislature to pass a law to require such entities to respond to information requests, if that entity is involved in police operations. It is in the public interest to be able to request data from a consolidated entity of this nature, rather than having to deal with each individual member entity.
See that "Preview" button?
So these privateers are impersonating police officers. I can see long prison terms coming up.
Oh, I come from a very Old Money family, and I assure you I can afford the best justice money can buy.
Let them claim that but then you revoke all those badges and let the company give them "Security" shields. If they work for a private corporation they are private security NOT LEO.
we called groups like these "the Mafia"
So you can shoot them in your house?? and they can't change you with anything for doing that??
Some needs to take that part all the way though the court system.
Do you want ED-209? Because that's how you get YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO COMPLY
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As much as it pains me I see two sides of this issue: 1) Anyone who is a public employee is subject to oversight in my humble opinion. Especially folks that wear badges, carry weapons and have arrest powers. It effects several of the rights of US citizens. 2) I understand the need for operational security, especially where organized crime (drug cartels, for example) are involved. If SWAT is used, for instance, in taking down a major drug dealers "safe house" and the probable cause they had was the result of undercover police then I'd say that is an example of records that need to be sealed for the safety of the undercover police involved. Undercover cops hang their skins over the line enough just doing what they do. There needs to be a fair balance between allowing law enforcement to do their jobs and the public "right to know." Some secrets I don't believe should be public knowledge if the safety of the lives acting on good faith are involved. Remember: law enforcement is done by human beings. I shudder to think of a "Robocop" scenario playing out in this country.
It's become a rather common excuse. These days it is typically mixed up with corporate claims of privacy. Essentially corporate secrecy is used as a way if short circuiting the rule of law. That's how the police departments that use Stingray cell phone interception technology to shred constitutional protections avoid admitting what they are doing: they have a confidentiality clause with the company who makes the device. Same thing with fracking chemicals: they can pump any toxic crap that they want to into the ground because it's a business secret.
So where were all the right wingers when this was going down during the Bush era? You know, the ones who are now claiming that Obama is destroying the constitution? Massive amnesia and/or massive hypocrisy?
(Personally I am furious with Obama because he has continued the blatantly unconstitutional policies of the Bush years, but at least I am not lying through my teeth and supporting one executive while screeching like a stuck pig when a democrat does the same kind of crap.)
Why is Snark Required?
Any legal/judicial experts care to weigh in on whether this argument has a snowball's chance of being accepted by any court?
More and more we are becoming the neo con paradise envisioned by the pro Pinochet Reaganites.
photosMy Photostream
The trouble is this is more or less a shell company created by these governments to place them outside the law and that should not work. You can't just create an extra legal entity to shield yourself for having to follow the legal regulations that apply to you.
We just had a SCOTUS ruling the other day that said you can't hire a proxy gun buyer to acquire weapons for you (say because you can't pass the background check) and then convey them to you in a private sale. They court basically held that when someone fills out the form and says they are purchasing a gun for their own use than that must be their intent at the time they sign the form.
Sure in that case it does not do much someone can still stand on the sidewalk outside the gun dealer and offer to by a weapon someone just purchased from them right then and there, and that was the dissents argument, but its really not the point.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I haven't yet looked for it, but I suspect the law that authorizes the creation of the LECs in the first place would implicitly preclude them from filing for non-profit status in the first place, so the LECs have committed fraud by doing so, and should be prosecuted in Federal court accordingly.
They are private corporations. So re Mexican cartels, Mara Salvatrucha or any Street gang.
Justice shouldn't discriminate among non governmental organized groups using weapons and violence to enforce their rule.
Send all of this gang motherfuckers to federal prison for life without parole
an all-chicken production of Fiddler on the Roof (of the coop)?
I'm sure it would stand in the South or some authoritarian Midwestern states, but people in MA actually fight for their freedom.
None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.
Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:
First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.
Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.
Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA
Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.
It's up to the voters whether they want to keep reelecting politicians who permit this if the state's attorney general doesn't sue.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So what I'd like to know is under what category of 501(c)(3) organization LECs claim to be operating, and for what exempt purpose?
Presumably, they are claiming to be a cooperative association, but such organizations are typically local chambers of commerce and the like, i.e. leagues of private individuals and organizations, not public entities such as local PDs.
Likewise, such an organization must have an exempt purpose: "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." (emphasis mine). Since these organizations are clearly not performing testing, they do not fall under the public safety exemption, leaving only the charitable option. While the IRS has been quite liberal in what it defines as a charitable purpose, they have never recognized the co-option and shielding from oversight of traditionally governmental functions as such a purpose.
With this arrangement suddenly bursting into public view, I'd be unsurprised to see the IRS yank these organizations' exemptions pretty quickly. Hopefully, the resulting outcry from the public when they learn that their local tax money is being wasted to pay federal taxes on these private organization's activities (which would be otherwise exempt if conducted by the gov't itself) will lead to a quick demise for this tactic.
Should be fired.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is there some reason that you cannot spell liberal correctly?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The Massachusetts Senate is 90% Democrats, the House is 80% Democrats, and the governor is a Democrat as well. How the hell can you blame libertarians for this? The only people responsible for what is happening in Massachusetts are Democrats and progressives. What you are seeing in Massachusetts is progressivism and American "liberalism" in action.
But you are correct that close ties between industry and government you see in Massachusetts (and increasingly elsewhere) are fascist in nature; private businesses implementing government policy and being rewarded for it is at the core of fascism. It's the "solution" people come up with when they don't like capitalism but are afraid of socialism. And history shows us it's a bad solution that will spin out of control.
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses. The kind of crony-capitalism and delegation of state power to private businesses ("privatization", government "outsourcing") you increasingly see in the US, advocated by Democrats and Republicans alike, represents core abuses of government power that libertarians oppose. It has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism, it just misuses the language of free markets and capitalism.
Take off your political blinders. Whether you like libertarianism or not, libertarians are not a significant political force in the US. Anything that happens in Massachusetts is the Democrats fault, and what happens in the rest of the country is a joint project of Democrats and Republicans.
Does anyone remember the days when you might expect one of the comments here to provide an analysis of MA laws and find the line that makes their "corporations are exempt" argument void?
I know, right, and it was like: hey what are all you new people here doing with these 4-digit user IDs?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
If I smack'em one, I would only be charged with assault and battery and NOT auscultating a police officer?
And if they wrongfully broke into my house for a raid and I shot them, I wouldn't be charged for killing a cop?
If they're not exceptionally careful there could be a case where the corporate veil is pierced and result in personal liability applied to the corporate officers. That would be far more chilling to this kind of bogus operation than merely ruling that they cannot hide behind corporate law to shield them from public transparency requirements.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I wonder if we can roll with this ....
What other things are private corporations not allowed to do, such raid a home and blow a hole in a baby on the off chance some kid was there with his stash? It seems like a lot of the abuses caused by militarizing police should be even more illegal for a private corporation and we have a government to protect us from such things. Heck, can't we get a police raid of their offices and confiscation of assets under RICO?
If the armed invaders breaking down your door aren't from the government, you aren't a cop killer for shooting them.
Metal Gear Solid was not a blueprint you assholes!
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract.
Whether or not they put it in a contract is irrelevant. A contract is void if it contradicts the law and the argument they are making pretty clearly contradicts the law in all likelihood. The argument this company is making is that they are not subject to rule of law, specifically the oversight that applies to law officers and their activities. Essentially they are arguing that the law doesn't apply to them because the check is from a private company even though the activities are unambiguously on the behalf of the government.
Basically if their argument is correct then they are private citizens engaging in vigilante activities and they should be in jail. If their argument is wrong then they are in violation a host of other laws and they should be in jail. Either way it has nothing to do with contract law.
I'd gladly accept this if it means they can't have it both ways and lose qualified immunity.
In short either they are government, and open to all of this, or they are private and fucked up the contract. Either case they can get sued.
Doesn't matter what the contract says. If they are acting on behalf of the government then they ARE the government and should be subject to the same rules and scrutiny. What the contract says is irrelevant if it contradicts the relevant laws because then the contract is void.
Either they are vigilantes or they are in violation of disclosure regulations. In both cases they should be in legal hot water.
Somewhere a judge is just waiting to rule on the leap of faith.
Maybe 9 if the argument is bizarre enough.
Dystopian sci-fi is full of unaccountable private security forces armed with the best weapons available, but those forces were always limited to some piece of private property...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Someone better put these arrogant dangerous anti-AMERICAN forces in their place. They are rogue state now. Everything they are represents everything Americans have fought for two hundred years.
The Massachusetts Senate is 90% Democrats, the House is 80% Democrats, and the governor is a Democrat as well. How the hell can you blame libertarians for this?
Very easily. Nothing stops libertarians from voting Democrat. Or Republican. Or third party.
Take off your political blinders. Whether you like libertarianism or not, libertarians are not a significant political force in the US.
Other way around. You need to take off your woe is me I'm a victim blinders. Libertarianism is a very strong political force in the US. Those more on the left vote D. Those more on the right vote R. The more anarchist ones vote for neither. But in the end, most of the USA love libertarianism. They just differ on which party they think will lead them closer to it.
What a bunch of crooked trash
Better chance a self-defense claim will stand a courtroom test if the aggressor is a non-sovereign body, even in the People's Repub...er, the Reich...,er, the Commonwealth.
Just sayin'
Is there some reason that you cannot spell liberal correctly?
I can't speak for that poster but I can guess why he spelled it that way. "Liberal" used to mean something more like "libertarian" before its meaning was perverted and distorted from "liberal exercise of civil rights" to mean "liberal imposition of government power". Sometimes the term "Classical Liberal" is used in an attempt to reverse this deliberate and underhanded confusion.
Even "libertarian" itself has been deliberately distorted from "advocates a small government limited to a) public works, b) national defense, and c) law enforcement and those things only, imposing only those restrictions which are truly necessary for a healthy society" to its new co-opted meaning of "anarcho-capitalist who wants even police to be private security that not all can afford". The intent there is obvious: change it from something hard to really argue against to something easily demonized that most people will learn to dismiss without thought or examination.
You'll find that the more an ideal threatens the use and expansion of power, the more propaganda is applied to change the meaning of words until they finally represent the very opposite of what they once stood for. It's the real-life equivalent of George Orwell's Newspeak. The "languages evolve so absolutely every change is totally legitimate and should never be resisted!" crowd are more or less Satan's little helpers here. Like most of Satan's little helpers, they think they're doing a good thing and would be horrified to see the money changing hands, the intentional authors of propaganda (called "PR"), and the concept of "manufactured consent" that established itself in this nation during the days of Woodrow Wilson.
So anyway, I read that to mean "ill-liberal" as in "not liberal" and certainly not "Classical Liberal" like what that word once meant.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case. Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for. There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
Disband them then.
Forbid this type of relationship
They are acting like a criminal enterprise if they are trying to skate around the laws. This violates the spirit of the laws. That alone should invalidate this type of operation and relationship from being a law enforcement one.
...in Massachusetts. Seriously, no joke. After the marathon bombings there was an unending outpouring of adulation for the "first respondahs." You'd think they had, at enormous losses, turned back the Taliban from invading Cambridge and raping the childrens. Not, in actuality, shut down the entire city while they raced around with giant hardons in a largely bungled effort to locate a bleeding, unarmed boy hiding in someone's boat in their back yard (whom the homeowner found and frankly should have clubbed to death on the spot). In the process of arresting this unarmed miscreant they unleashed a barrage of fire on the boat very nearly killing the kid in the process.
.
Meanwhile folks are still running around with their "Boston Strong" shirts on in one of the lamest displays of self-congratulatory faux heroism that I've ever seen
The cops and firefighters are milking it with giant billboards touting some BS about being "on the home team", trying to get people to donate to some police fund. It's pathetic.
This 501(c)3 nonsense is just further evidence of their warped perspective of what it is "to protect and serve."
And, BTW, most Libertarians do agree, that law-enforcement is the government's function — the sole one, perhaps.
Any libertarian that actually thinks law enforcement is the only job of a government is an idiot. The first job of a government is to create the laws. You cannot enforce laws if you cannot create them. Second, it is impossible to administer any government without some form of revenue and this means taxation. Third, there are numerous market failures that simply cannot be efficiently handled by a market place. Military, certain bits of infrastructure, health care for certain at-risk groups, administration of certain public goods, etc. All of these go well beyond mere law enforcement. Law enforcement is a component of all these items but it's hardly the entirety of it.
Oh, it may be provided by private companies, but those must be hired by and operate on the authority of the local governments.
...and subject to the same laws as it would be if it were not a private company. FTFY. Private companies should never get a free pass when acting in a governmental capacity.
This is stretching the definition of charitable.
Have gnu, will travel.
How long is it going to take for the citizens to rise en masse and doing something about this kind of thing? Do we really all want to live under the bootheels of a new ruling class?
The sheep want to feel completely secure so this is the natural outcome, nothing to see here.
Here is what the Cato institute put out about the rise of SWAT teams:
http://store.cato.org/reports/...
To demonstrate how much of a problem this is, there is even a map of incidents:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
Reason hasn't had a commentary on it yet, but they have already posted information about the privatized SWAT teams:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06...
I expect in a day or two, you'll see a Reason article condemning the practice strongly for what it is: crony capitalism, lack of government accountability, and government overreach.
And everybody wonders why we would need assault weapons.
The answer is to be able to stand against a tyranny. These "SWAT" teams are over reaching, and if they are independent corporations, then we have no obligation to obey ANYTHING they say.
This is yet another piece of evidence that our county is moving towards fascism. Corporations having authority of government.
If the courts do not immediately reel them in, and get them under control, many of the people will cease to recognize the authority of these so called private swat teams.
If public record request are not honored, then I expect some will take the information from them by force, or covert meants.
These guys are either agents of the government who are allowed to kick in my door in the middle of the night (if they have a warrant, of course...) and arrest me, or they are a private corporation that has none of those rights, can be ignored by any private citizen, and is responsible for financing their own operations. They cannot be both. If this is allowed to stand, we will be well on our way to a country populated by private armies and security police who can run roughshod over the population with no adverse consequences to them. It's another example of the shocking government overreach that has been taking place in the past decade.
IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Not true in a lot of cases. I've been on the board of a 501c3 and I'm also a corporate accountant. Our normal disclosure requirements for the non-profit were fairly minimal and certainly less than most of the companies I've been involved in. You are correct in some cases but not universally so.
If they're private corporations, they're also immune from many of the protections extended to government entities including police departments. Sue them like you'd sue a hospital and make sure those police chiefs on their boards are included by name in the lawsuit. That'll force them, as a minimum, to hire lawyers. And since their activities are those of a private corporation, they can't stick tax-payers for their legal costs.
If they're corporations, they can be sued out of existence. Let the fun begin!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Is this just the setup for the Robocop Prequel?
Awesome marketing!
And can no longer claim government immunity from personal and corporate liability for their actions.
Drokk!
There must be something interesting going with the officers pay. If the officers are truly employed by LECs then the LECs must receive taxable income from the state of Massachusetts in order to pay the LECs employees. If that were the case, then the state's method of control over the LECs is by supplying money, and the LECs are (technically) mercenaries. On the other hand, if the officers are somehow being paid directly by the state, then the LECs are nothing more than consultants, and the state can, at will, oust them, and replace either state employees. I would say that the later situation is better for the state, but necessarily as good as just having top to bottom state employees. I'm no expert.
This coming to light is a good thing. This is obviously a workaround to avoid liability and to turn this into a Tax dodge.
Now that the public knows about it, it can be strung up in Court Square and done away with.
If they're a private corporate then they're not part of the government/police. If that's the case they don't have legal jurisdiction in police matters. Ergo, any time they bust into somebody's place, they're violating the law and not subject to any of the protections offered to a member of legal law enforcement.
No, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
This conversation's going nowhere because we've started with a one-sided news report and all of us agree that this is bullshit. It's chest-high full of straw men in here. So here's an attempt to describe the SWAT teams' legal rationale for this. It comes from reading the news report, reading the Law Enforcement Councils' website, and living in Massachusetts so I know how local government works. Plus a lot of "what would I do if I were evil" speculation.
Massachusetts has very weak county government. Local law enforcement, even in rural areas, happens at the town level. Many small towns have like one cop car and two cops, and can't afford a crime lab, a drug lab, a K-9 unit, and whatnot. The county provides specialist services to all the towns within it, but SWAT teams are not one of these services. It makes total sense that local towns would form a cooperative association (the LECs) to pool their limited SWAT resources.
From what I read on their websites, it looks like SWAT personnel don't work for the LEC. They're ordinary town cops who're assigned duty to work with other town cops through the LEC. That is to say, the LEC has no law enforcement authority, but the individual cops do. The LEC provides equipment storage, networking, and shared training for the town cops. As far as I can tell, legally, the LEC is just a place to park the SWAT van, a seminar room for Powerpoints, and a phone tree.
It's not a private army, I bet they'll say, it's a professional association, just like how your city's dentists all get together at the country club first Tuesday of the month. All the personnel are employed by the towns. All the equipment belongs to the towns. You want the public records for your recent 3 a.m. visit by the battering ram boys? Talk to your town.
Now, clearly, this is all bullshit. But it seems to me to be well-crafted bullshit, created by the SWAT teams' lawyer buddies, and we're not going to make it go away unless we appreciate it for what it is.
Doesn't the Open Records policy still apply to corporations when acting on behalf of, or in lieu of, a public organisation? Honest question as I don't know, but the UK's Freedom of Information Act which borrowed heavily from the US system has such a provision and private organisations are not exempt from requests if working in that capacity.
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses.
Which is fine as a principle but is almost the very definition of a two edged sword. There often are VERY good reasons why we insist on certain government involvement in more than a few private affairs. The tricky bit is keeping that beast on a short leash. Privacy is fine until it starts to affect other people.
Libertarians want to reduce state interference in private affairs, including private businesses.
Here's where the two edged sword comes in. You risk trading a government master for a private one possibly with less accountability. It's fine to keep the government out of your private business affairs until your private business affairs start to cause problems for others (intentionally or unintentionally). Governments have generally better accountability controls than private businesses do (which is a disturbing thought) in lots of cases.
The kind of crony-capitalism and delegation of state power to private businesses ("privatization", government "outsourcing") you increasingly see in the US, advocated by Democrats and Republicans alike, represents core abuses of government power that libertarians oppose.
First off, I don't think Libertarians as a group are any more ethically upstanding than Democrats or Republicans. Give Libertarians power and you'll get corrupted outcomes. The only difference will be in the fine details.
Whether the government directly controls an activity or contracts the actual performance of it is a fairly trivial distinction that is easily addressed - basically the same rules should apply either way. It gets murkier when the government abdicates responsibility for a task altogether trusting to market forces or other mechanisms to ensure a well functioning society. This has to be addressed on a case by case basis and there is no over simplified "government = bad" answer.
Private corporations? Does that mean you can legally shoot to kill if they bust your door in. Since naturally no private corp has no right to enter private property without owners consent... And clearly they are there to murder you and your family, why else would they enter your house armed to teeth without invitation...
Police after all are public_servants not private corporations..
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case.
They are arguing that the laws relating to reasonable oversight of police activities don't apply to them. They are arguing very literally that they are not subject to rule of law. And while there may be details we are not aware of, on the face of it, it appears they have no case at all. The mere fact that the performance of a government activity is executed by a private firm should NEVER result in reduced scrutiny when it comes to a public interest as important as policing.
Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for.
They are arguing that because the contract doesn't stipulate disclosure that reasonable oversight mandated by law for very good reasons no longer applies. This is a ridiculous argument. They are arguing that laws that are not stated in a contract do not apply. Furthermore no contract can compel a vendor to violate the law.
There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
They can agree to whatever they want in the contract and IT DOESN'T MATTER if it contradicts the law. Disclosure of certain police activities is mandated by laws (up to and including the Constitution) which supersede any contract.
There is a lot of bickering on the this page about what Libertarianism does or does not believe, or the sins of government and/or corporations, but let's cut to the chase: Is there anybody here who thinks this scheme is a good idea?. As far as I can tell in the few hundred comments posted thus far, the answer is a resounding "No!"
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Hans Christian Andersen called — suggesting, you read his book.
Huh?
Sure. And yet, the US managed without Federal Income Tax until 1914 (happy anniversary). And even when it was introduced, the rate was only 1% — and only on people whose income was in millions in today's dollars.
That page describes a theoretical term — without offering actual examples except where something government-provided is involved. Because there aren't "market failures", that are solvable with more government . The road congestion is cited as an example of "market failure" — but, somehow, the solution of letting private interests build more roads and charge for their use is not suggested.
You have the page opened, why don't read the "Objections" section?
Military does not. The rest should be handled by competing private providers. Yes, including roads. If Tokyo can have competing subway lines, why can't New York?
But, seriously, you had me at the "idiot"...
Full agreement here. This rule, however, does not at all mean, police must always be government employees. The same way a mall may hire a security firm, a town may hire an entire police-department. After competitive bidding, having reviewed their references and past performance, and for a period of certain number of years, after which the contract may or may not be extended. Thus hired, they will be — by laws and their contract — subject to laws, including FOIA.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
At least we can thank the People's Republic of MA for removing all doubt as to what the Dems are up to. Especially with that truly bizarre Boston Marathon that mixed real tragedy with the most lurid and in-your-face security theater imaginable in 12 years since Ground Zero.
Bush, Cheney, Prince Bandar, et al. removed all doubt what the neo-cons were up to, on 9/11.
Huh?
So you can imagine a system where the government enforces a law that they didn't create ? Who creates the laws then ?
If a government entity orders the execution of a set of actions in the spirit of national defense but innocent civilians are injured, the government can't be sued. If it's a private company that orders and carries out the same set of actions that results in the same injuries to innocent civilians, they are no longer immune to lawsuits. They can be held accountable for negligence. If they want to give up their government status and claim to be private corporations, then they better hope that people don't sue their asses every time they fuck up.
What have the SWAT teams got to hide ?
The police ought to shut these rogue units down.
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED .—(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal prop-
erty of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is
(emphasis mine)
If you're not a government agency... what are you doing with all that excess military equipment acquired via the 1033 program?
References: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agen...
https://www.justnet.org/other/...
http://www.nps.gov/legal/laws/...
A 501(c)3 is an ->NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION". In what manner could these be considered "educational"?
mark, who has, in the past, been a member of the board of one or two 501(c)3 organizations, and is a member
of two right now.
I say fine, let them be a private organization. But by doing so, they then limit themselves from the additional benefits otherwise granted them by law. For instance, most of their equipment (more than just certain guns and ammunition) would then be illegal for them to purchase, possess, or use.
If they are not really cops, that means that a private citizen is attacking me. Therefore, I am within my rights to use deadly force to protect my life, right?
This is a great arrangement.
They get to claim to be a govt LEO when they need the authority
But claim they are a separate private corp when necessary.
Perhaps the original intent was to avoid responsibility if something goes wrong in a raid.
(And in doing so, eliminate some of the feedback limiting swat actions.)
A great deal if you can get it,
but no reason to think this scam will pass the walks like a duck test.
Swat police power has no business being a private function.
Hopefully a court case will bring these folks back to reason.
Money.
...is that they have no legal authority to arrest, detain or point a gun at me? Walmart can't send their employees out packing heat and arrest people. Why would these 'corporations' have that authority?
The rent-a-cops are private corporations until they start collecting their fat state pensions, not to mention expecting a free lunch across the state as 'first responders'.
So.. Private company, being employed by the local/state authorities to undertake police raids?
Where was the RFQ?
Did they follow state and local law for public bids?
Find a couple of retired cops or out of work military police, incorporate, then sue for not having a chance to bid on the work being done.
Because.. Regardless of the obvious issues. The simple one to prove is corruption in awarding bids for public work.
Either you are an immigrant, who hasn't been here as long as me, or a foreigner. In America, when one talks about "government" without qualifications, the Executive government is presumed. Laws here are passed by the Legislature, which is not involved in their enforcement. Though the Legislature is often referred to as a government branch, it is distinctly different. Indeed, it is not even permanent or full-time.
But, even without all of that, the Constitution was written before we had the first President and Congress. And even before that, the laws again murder, theft, and thievery existed — whether they were presented as "God-given" or just self-evident, they didn't need to be put on paper for people to all agree, these things are wrong.
Now, a law banning "overly large" soda-drinks — that is something, you need a government to invent. And an Illiberal one at that.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You assume they even bother with propaganda or pretense anymore...
Citizen, you will be sent indefinitely to a work camp. Cease resisting and comply with the corporate security officer's request.
Ah but the corporations are owned by the shareholders, in this case it would be the police boards that pay into each 'corporation' but no matter how far down the line the money the police spend belongs to we the people so the 'shares' belong to 'we the people' as technically we are supposed to own the governement.
The US government has been a corporation since 1871, and the citizens lost control of their money in 1933. If you are looking for the actual owners of the country, check the "bank" section in the yellow pages.
lucm, indeed.
Does this mean I can shoot back at the intruders!?
1. Firearms purchases and acquisitions need to be evaluated.
2. If they are funded by tax payer money, aren't there certain records that have to be available?
3. If they are a non-profit, there needs to be an auditing of their books to account for the dollars spent vs taken in.
We may have the worst Supreme Court in American history. Yet these blind, old right wing, hogs who look for all the world like a bunch of adle brained, badly dressed drag queens in their black robes may well have tossed us a huge pile of peanuts. You see these geniuses declared that a corporation is a person. Therefore we can assume that a corporation and a person have exactly the same status in law. So if an ordinairy citizen can be compelled to hand over all kinds of information by a court then so can an incorporation. And beyond that any corporation that acts outside of public interest can have its corporation nulled. I'll bet many people feel that a swat team operating as a corporation is against the best interest of the public and that we can sue to dissolve those swat teams. The fact that they do not want to be free and open with their information indicates that they have guilt or liability and need to be put under scrutiny in the courts.
There is one thing for sure: They are rotten with "Boston Lawyers"!
The blues (Democrats) are generally a bit more right-wing than the reds (Republicans). I'm not saying either one is truly idealistic and "political", but if you look at their own stated stances on various issues, it really does work out that way. Generally, and within the fiction that people ought to continue to support the two party system, conservatives should vote Democrat and liberals should vote Republican. Look at the issues, not the labels.
Belief in science, reality can be understood, common sense and pragmatism usually apply: conservative. Anti-science, life is dominated by supernatural phenomena, common sense and evidence-based-thinking are almost always misleading, nothing can ever be truly understood except via by mystic authority: hippie liberal crystal goddesses.
In favor of people having the freedom to exercise individual rights, even if that sometimes conflicts with social engineering: conservative. People are property of the state and should sacrifice personal liberty to do whatever The Chairman says is in our Great Society's best interest: socialist liberal.
Businesses should not get a free handout at public expense, so either stop polluting or else pay for it: conservative. Businesses should get subsidies at the taxpayers' expense, because running a business is fraught with hardship: bleeding heart corporatist liberal.
People should accept personal responsibility and anticipate risk of catastrophic expenses instead of externalizing them, so you will get health insurance or else pay as through you did: conservative. People should go to the ER and get "free" health care (at the expense of other taxpayers who should be required to subsidize the freeloading irresponsible hippies): liberal.
If the states want to legalize marijuana or at least put the decision-making into the hands of subject matter experts (i.e. doctors), that's ok with me, so I'll bow to Anti-Federalist ideology: conservative. Fuck "states rights," I'm going to sic my Attorney General on California so everyone will know that James Madison is my hero, not scum like Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams: liberal.
Rich states who pay more tax than they get back in pork: conservative. Poor states who live off public handouts: liberal.
Massachusetts: Right-Wingers. They're a blue state, relatively conservative in most ways compared to red states, such as Mississippi.
And while I can't do this justice in a symmetrical way, you should also look at presidential candidates, some time. Consider 2012, when two conservative candidates (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) did try to work with that party, and they were both soundly rejected in favor of nuttier, more paranormal-believing centralized-economic-planning folks. And look at the candidate they settled on: a guy who kept saying he was going to use his power as president, to "create jobs." That's something you'd expect to hear from a 1930s Communist.
(Admission: I'm both serious and also kidding with all this. It's not really that the blue party is conservative, as it is that the red party has completely turned its back on conservativism, so next to Republicans, nearly anyone looks right-wing. At some point, the red party became "red" in the sense that people were suddenly using that word in 1917. So this whole "blue state == liberal" thing really is bullshit, despite the fact that you happen to be correct about Massachusetts (yes, they're liberals). You should expect conservative populations to "vote blue." What other color would they vote?)
Wow! This is an outrageous sham. According to NEMLECs IRS 990 form, which is a public record, they had $85K in revenue last year and their primary purpose is:
"To promote and pursue training and education, research, studies and programs to assist and improve police departments that comprise the Northeast Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC) and its operations to provide means for the reciept of gifts a
"Through a comedy show the organization helped to raise funds to pay for various law enforcement training sessions for members of the northeastern Massachusetts law enforcement community."
The golf tournament raised $30K but had expenses of $18K for a net of $12K. The comedy show raised $17K but had expenses of $12K for a net of $5K. The only asset they has is $70K in cash.
They are either lying to the people of Massachusetts or the IRS.
then here must be specific contracts that are drawn up to pay for their services. If that is true then the public has a right to see any and all documents pertaining to the nature of these contracts. Failure to comply should be met with withholding of public funds, as otherwise rampant theft of public property might be taking place without oversight. Perhaps, this is the primary reason they are so reluctant to let anyone know what they are doing.
Likewise if they are 'corporations' they then are a different kind of entity from a government functionary and thus do not have the same authority legalwise.
They better rethink this move because I can see alot of difficulties they will get into.
This is also an avenue for potential 'we didnt do that' dodging of responsibility by politicians for excesses and possible unpopular/outrageous future actions
If they are 501 C(3), let them raise money the way the other charities do and get the hell off of my tax bill. I donate to police and firefighter charities but I make sure I know where my money is going.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Does this mean they are fairly openly violating the National Firearms Act as the only exemptions I am aware of apply to Government Agencies / Departments.
So they are either violating the NFA by having un-taxed and registered automatic weapons or they are a Government Agency and subject to open records.
Someone want to narc on them to the ATF, the ATF raiding the private SWAT corporations would be good TV.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I could see that backfiring on them in a big way. If the MA SWAT teams are actually private agencies, then that could be used by a clever lawyer to damage their qualified immunity. If they're actually some sort of private contractors, then suing them would get a whole lot easier, since qualified immunity probably only applies to state and federal employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If (SWAT == gov.agents || SWAT.hired(gov)) {SWAT.abide(gov.obligation); citizen.follow_what_they_say;}
if (SWAT == private.cop) {citizen.fightback;}
You don't have to. Just read Citizen United versus FEC. They will use it to get around federal and state laws that are inconvenient for them and specifically designed to be.
Charge them with National Firearms Act violations. $10k fine plus ten years in Federal PMITA prison for each violation. That's every single silencer, machine gun, short-barreled shotgun and short-barreled rifle that they didn't put on a Form 4.
when 2 groups of swat teams shoot it out with each other or encroach on common territory,
where is the accountability?
Sounds like those friendly folks at Murder Incorporated have expanded into the public control business.
I agree but they have a firepower advantage no homeowner could counter. We need to stop this insanity now and find out what they are trying to hide.
http://www.corporatecrimerepor...
Fines or imprisoning CEOs do little to change the pattern of relationships and values and policies that make an organization what it is, any more than a human body loosing some skill cells or even brain cells usually changes how a person behaves very much.
Seriously, why should any corporate communications have any expectation of privacy? Corporations with "limited liability" are chartered for the public interest. 150 years ago, US Americans put such creatures on very short leashes because they had seen what trouble resulted from big British corporations in the American colonies. Individuals have now lost pretty much all informational privacy due to large corporations and the current internet. Why should bigger more powerful creatures than humans like corporation have more privacy in practice than humans? See also David Brin's "The Transparent Society". Any argument that corporations need privacy (like for salaries or payments for services) for some sort of commercial advantage is trumped by the public interest in understanding what corporations are doing and also that if all corporations were transparent there would be a level playing field. Granted, it would require new ways of doing business, but books like "Honest Business" also extol the value of "open books". Or perhaps corporations should be forced to choose -- if they want limited liability for shareholders then they need to be transparent; if every shareholder accepts full responsibility for all actions of the organization, then they can have privacy?
And see also my comments from 2000, the relevant section copied below (sadly a lot of links there have rotted):
http://www.dougengelbart.org/c...
========= machine intelligence is already here =========
I personally think machine evolution is unstoppable, and the best hope
for humanity is the noble cowardice of creating refugia and trying, like
the duckweed, to create human (and other) life faster than other forces
can destroy it. [Well, I now in 2014 think there are also other options, like symbiosis, maybe friendly AI, and in general trying to be nicer to each other like with a basic income in hopes that leads to a happier singularity...]
Note, I'm not saying machine evolution won't have a human component --
in that sense, a corporation or any bureaucracy is already a separate
machine intelligence, just not a very smart or resilient one. This sense
of the corporation comes out of Langdon Winner's book "Autonomous
Technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought".
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/
You may have a tough time believing this, but Winner makes a convincing
case. He suggests that all successful organizations "reverse-adapt"
their goals and their environment to ensure their continued survival.
These corporate machine intelligences are already driving for better
machine intelligences -- faster, more efficient, cheaper, and more
resilient. People forget that corporate charters used to be routinely
revoked for behavior outside the immediate public good, and that
corporations were not considered persons until around 1886 (that
decision perhaps being the first major example of a machine using the
political/social process of its own ends).
http://www.adbusters.org/magaz...
Corporate charters are granted supposedly because society believe it is
in the best interest of *society* for corporations to exist.
But, when was the last time people were able to pull the "charter" plug
on a corporation not acting in the public interest? It's hard, and it
will get harder when corporations don't ne
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You have to label ideologies in order to discuss them. It's the labeling of *people* that IMHO, is unconstructive and just leads to primitive tribal conflict.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The argument being made is irrelevant.
It is easy to show that a right to public oversight over private entities arises under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people". We show this using a technique known since Euclid, namely proof by contradiction.
Assume that no such right exists. Then it follows that the government may infringe any right by appropriate delegation to third party entities. From this, it follows that no rights exists. But the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land (superior even to the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, as the history clearly shows) provides both for explicit rights and unstated rights. Hence we have a contradiction, and the assumption is shown to be invalid.
Government may not hide behind 3rd party entities, nor may it hide behind private property. As a corollary, it follows that the Bill of Rights can and often does limit the actions of private entities.
Law such as contract law and property law is only valid to the extant that it does not violate fundamental rights, including any rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) or the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people) that are not explicitly stated in the law.
Thus, in this case, an argument based on contract law is irrelevant. If the request for information was appropriate, and if the refusal to provide information was made by a legal professional, sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights, while engaged in the practice of law, it follows that person is in violation of that oath.
All rights have limits, of course. In most situations, the only oversight that is required is of the long-term variety. In the case of government, long term oversight allows police, military, and espionage operations to be carried out with some degree of secrecy when appropriate. For instance, the identities of undercover agents may be concealed under many circumstances, for a reasonable period of time. In the case of private entities, long term oversight allows trade secrets to be kept for a reasonable period of time.
The people have the final authority to decide what is appropriate. That is inherent in the nature of rights retained to the people.
In practice, getting the legal profession to recognize the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments seems difficult (aside from a few well known exceptions such as Roe vs Wade). This problem can primarily be ascribed to ethical conflicts on interest that arise on the part of the legal profession with respect to this issue. That last point that has been made numerous times on Slashdot during prior discussions, in the context of discussions on copyright law, patent law, contract law, and property law, so I won't belabour the point here.
Law is far too important to trust to the legal profession.
is still tyranny. This is going to the SCOTUS for sure.