Investigation Of SWAT Teams Uncovers Stunning Accountability Loophole

The ACLU's ongoing investigations of SWAT teams has been thwarted because of a loophole, and that's SWAT teams claiming to be private corporations.

Tax payer funded police who create SWAT teams from multiple police forces use this loophole to stop any FIOA requests and, basically, all accountability of their actions. The mistakes of SWAT teams, raiding the wrong houses, killing/injuring innocent men, women, children, family pets, and destroying private property is well known to ATS and they are doing their best to get away with it.

The TYT said it best in this video, big government isn't the problem, private corporations are! (Of course big gov't is the problem as well)

a reply to: Swills

Wow! That should have been the title of the post: "SWAT teams claiming to be private corporations" So they can't be investigated under FOIA requests.

We've officially set up a world where government forces, like swat teams and intelligence groups, are moving out from government to become corporations, so they can avoid any accountability to voters. Yet they exercise the same level of control as if they were government entities. This is a totally new world, and no attempt to "reign in government" can stop it, because the real forces behind government are no longer officially government, they are corporations who act on behalf of government: these corporations are "individual people entitled to privacy" as the SCOTUS ruling "citizens united" has declared. So by that ruling, SWAT teams are individual people, and any attempt to learn about them could be akin to some kind of stalking.

We've moved into some bizarre territory here.

a reply to: tridentblue


In that case,corporations can be sued for malperformance,can`t they?Could also mean any private entity can form their own swat teams or counter-swat teams.They have opened up a big can of worms.Dunno if they realized that.

originally posted by: Sunwolf
a reply to: tridentblue


In that case,corporations can be sued for malperformance,can`t they?Could also mean any private entity can form their own swat teams or counter-swat teams.They have opened up a big can of worms.Dunno if they realized that.

they realise, that's why they still pretend to be government
if you still THINK they have the same authority and mandate, you wont build your own swat team. or hire one from the next town over to face off your town.

a reply to: Swills

Just found this little gem. Your tax dollars hard at work, folks.
When in history have the good guys ever worn masks?


The town of Neenah has a population of ~25,000.

a reply to: Swills

Well, that's fine.

In that case, if they really are corporations, then I hope their members are not expecting any of the following:

Government pensions
Healthcare benefits commensurate with public office
Tax breaks
Access to information gleaned from AFIS, CODIS, police cybercrime divisions
Intelligence gained from the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, The US Marshals Service
A lack of competition...

You see, the most dangerous thing about all this, as far as I can make out, is that not only do these guys no longer have any right to engage in law enforcement (since that is the job of persons employed directly by the state, as part of policing by consent, not privately run corporations), but there is now the possibility that other private paramilitary organisations will tender against them, for the same work.

Also, if a private citizen takes out a unit of SWAT operatives, that person is no longer guilty of killing a law enforcement agent, since law enforcement is the purview of the state, and not privately owned corporate entities, and by extension, it's employees can no longer be treated by law, as any different than any other joe on the street, either as a perpetrator or a victim.

So, now it does not matter what kind of warrant is being served. Whether it's a no knock, or a knock bloody hard warrant, the persons who are being sought out by these organisations, can now engage with SWAT without concern that successfully defending their homes and lives will wind them up marked as cop killers.

SWAT are no longer police, so they no longer have the right to batter a front door down, nor do they have the right to read others their rights. They only have the right to perform citizens arrests on suspects. Nor do they have the automatic right to carry and use high powered rifles, or indeed any of the special weapons and tactics that their name would otherwise indicate. If a person is killed during their raids, the officer responsible, or the unit as a whole, must be arrested, charged, and put on trial for the death, since SWAT are now a corporate body, rather than actually being a part of the law enforcement community, and therefore are not protected by connection to that august association.

This is a double edged blade, and I dearly hope they fall on it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

SWAT response:
F#@% you.
F#@% you.
What door?
F#@% you.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Is that real? Imma call b.s.. They got through that whole thing and didn't shoot the director?

Since when do corporations legally operate on US soil without being legally under the the laws of the land, the constitution, etc. They may think they can, but in reality they can't. Do you think the corporate franchise down the road is immune from legal consequence? They are still obligated to obey the law.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Is that real? Imma call b.s.. They got through that whole thing and didn't shoot the director?

Yep, it's legit. Wow.. they can raid a shack thats been abandoned for at least ten years. Kudos, guys.

They screwed up though, pretty sure throwing the flashbang into a crib is standard breach and clear protocol. Pfft. Amateurs.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You bring up an interesting point, although it makes me curious as to whether or not these private corporation members have been "deputized." After all, look at how many aspects of the Intelligence community have been outsourced to private contractors. Such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Stratfor, etc...

Police dogs are considered to be Officers. If someone assaults or kills one, it's no different than a human officer in the eyes of the law.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Well, police dogs, by definition, work for the police department. When they get killed in the line of duty, it is only fair that the perpetrator be bought to justice commensurate with that position.

However, in the case of the other aspects you mention, the deputisation of contractors to perform intelligence roles and so on, that is also a deeply questionable practice, which links back to the same issues of accountability, but on a different level.

Where as SWAT operate within US borders, and deal with street level criminal activity (apart from their own of course), the organisations you mention are likely being used for a plethora of tasks, including but not limited to, asset protection, detainee management, data analysis, and surveillance duties, involving US intelligence operations on a world wide scale.

However, the accountability issues arising from this issue are largely the same. US intelligence organisations are notoriously difficult to scrutinise, because their stock in trade is lying like a corpse, to those to whom it falls to oversee them, while preventing access to the most sensitive data by way of waving the "national security" flag until their shoulder bones slip out of the sockets they usually rest in. However better for them, by far, is the idea of employing a private contractor, who is not even NOTIONALLY bound by ethical concerns, is not under civilian oversight of any small kind, can operate without executive authorisation, and answers to no one except the long dead Benjamin Franklin.

That way all the things they want done, that should not be done, get done anyway, and there is not a damned thing that can be done to prevent that, unless someone very high up the food chain gets some horrific disease (a conscience) and disbands the whole enterprise until something less effective (less morally questionable) can replace it.

This SWAT issue is very similar, but of course deals with meth heads and innocent bystanders, rather than organising dodgy deals and the sale of arms to organisations which then turn around and shank an entire region in the kidneys (ISIS).

I have to say, I do not like where this appears to be going.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Eloquently stated, good sir. *tips hat*

I fully agree, this seems to be a bit of legal-ese chicanery to avoid any amount of accountability and oversight. By loopholing out the dirty work to corporations who are wholly unaccountable for their actions, nor even their existence or purpose known of by many of the general public, it's simply the government trying to maintain the illusion of keeping their hands clean.

And then you can open the can of worms known as the privatization of prisons, lobbying lawmakers for harsher punishment of non-violent crimes to maintain their 90% bunks filled quotas.

As a great movie taught me long ago about the real golden rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules." The recent SCOTUS ruling determining that financial contributions to a political campaign are considered to be "constitutionally protected free speech" makes this all too clear.

I have to agree with you though, I don't like where this is going, not one bit.

Methinks Operation Paperclip has either gone too far, or backfired horrifically.

On a brighter note though; throughout history, the rise of oppression eventually springs forth liberation.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

On the subject of the rise of oppression leading to eventual liberation, I agree with you in many respects. However, what concerns me is the time between the two. North Korea for example, has been in dire straights for decades, and generations of people have died, been mutilated, mentally and physically abused to the point where cannibalism has occurred, and is a nation whose people starve while its leaders feast.

Granted, it is allegedly a communist nation, where as the US is a capitalist society. However, it has to be said, that after a certain point, a gulag is a gulag, no matter whether it is run privately at a profit, or by statist ideologues as a public service.