clause, which entitles every american the liberty to be able to vote for whoever they want. to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries, visit studentcam.org. host: our guests now is chris coyne, the author of this book. so, you write about the consequences of u.s. military action overseas. you talk about something you called the boomerang effect. christopher: thank you for having me. we are analyzing some of the implications of u.s. foreign policy, which is driven by a military first mindset. that one of the overlooked consequences of this proactive foreign intervention

, certainften times techniques come home and reduce the liberties and freedoms of citizens. host: give us some examples. sure, the entire surveillance apparatus is one of the results of foreign intervention. one of the shocking things we discovered is that a lot of people associate surveillance with the nsa, but really it can be traced all the way back to the u.s. occupation of the film -- philippines. that is when they came back and set up the origins of the surveillance state. example isemporary military equipment and the iraq war. for example, there is something called the stingray, a cell phone simulator which is a small suitcase that acts as a fake whichhone tower,

redirects cell phones in a geographic space through this device so that police are able to locate individuals. this was designed for the u.s. military in the iraq war, but it has come home, and it is estimated that 35 out of 50 police departments in the states have these. host: part of your research led you to ferguson, can you remind us what happened there and what the scene was like? christopher: sure. and the the protests big images that may news was the militarization of police. had people protesting police violence, sniper rifles and so this starkpainted picture of this idea of militarization and the idea of the appropriate role of police. host: explain why this is a problem. christopher: it is a problem

because police, what they are meant to do is protect and serve. they are peacekeepers. that is fundamentally different from the role of the military, where their role is to annihilate the enemy abroad and protect the country from foreign threats. those are different goals, and they involve different techniques. of course, the u.s. constitution does not apply outside the borders of the united states. when the u.s. military goes abroad, they are not confined by the constitution, which is meant to apply domestically. host: democrats, republicans, and others can call it. your opinion.r

why don't you explain for us something called the 1033 program? we have alluded to it, but explain how it works. it is one of several programs whereby the u.s. federal government and department of defense through the defense logistics agency transfers military equipment to domestic forces. this goes back to the reagan administration in the 80's as part of the war on drugs. under the reagan administration, there was authorization for members of the military to share intelligence with members of the police. that expanded in the 90's, and the idea was to help police officers combat the war on drugs domestically, they needed superior equipment. the idea was that by transferring military equipment to police department, it would aid on the war -- in the war on drugs.

after 9/11, it expanded even more. that by arming police with military equipment, they could aid them in combating terrorist threats. this is from 2006, guns per 1000 residents. kentucky, 24 -- 28.4 guns per 1000 people. put these numbers in perspective, and why these places? christopher: that is one of the things that stands out. as you read these names, those are not areas where people think of as major areas or threats of terrorism. any department can apply to get military equipment through this , and what we have seen

in many instances are departments where there are relatively low crime wave, low threats of terrorism. the threat of terrorism is extremely low in the united states. murder rates, for instance, getting military equipment rifles. armored vehicles and aircraft, and so on. he wrote in usa today recently about stephon clark, the 22-year-old who was shot in sacramento california. the city possesses more than 1000 assault rifles, helicopters, and an airplane. with that in perspective. christopher: the idea is that sacramento is a larger city, and they have certain weapons which are highly questionable. you might say they need rifles to combat certain extreme

threats, but it is hard to justify grenade launchers, for instance. is hard to justify military equipment that has no place domestically, that has no place on u.s. soil. the risk here is that this equipment is going to incentivize people who possess it to act in a more militaristic and or and to blurt this line between domestic police and the military. host: a lot of background. chriseast -- our guest is point. hey, phil. >> pay. -- hey. i heard your comments about military equipment, and i understand that some of our organizations have these. everybody complaints, but i have never heard of a police department using grenade launchers on anyone. break never seen them

blowtorch is are any of this stuff. goes, as the equipment you have 50 police officers 30,000down crowds of people. without extra equipment, if this goes awry, how are they supposed to protect themselves? they are here to protect us. when you see police officers out there with that stuff, you don't attack them. that is a deterrent. host: they for calling, let's go to our guest. , thosepher: thank you are a range of important issues. one of the big issues is the idea of institutional prerequisites. the idea that many activities at domestically by the state matter in the immediate term, they matter right now. they also create possibilities for the future. you are right, there are not

cases where the members of the police are utilizing grenade launchers. but your point raise the question of why these things are being transferred, why they are being given to police department's domestically. of course, you can say we can envision a situation where they might be useful. you can also envision situations in the future where they can be of use. -- abused. your points about police officers needing to protect themselves, i get this is an important issue. one thing i want to make clear is that a lot of people read these type of arguments and discussions about militarization of least and think somehow it is anti-police. nothing could be further from the truth. issue is talking about and discussing the role of lease, protecting police, and the relationship with citizens.

the argument that having this equipment makes police safer. you can also make the argument it makes them less safe, because they are more likely to put themselves or place themselves in situations that are more aggressive. which increases the danger to police. this is a fine line, and it is unclear which direction we will move. host: market is calling from maryland. we understand you are a police officer. >> thanks for taking my call. hope that chris is not cherry picking some of the stats here. if you look at the majority of police departments, he brought up grenade launchers and i think that is really pushing people to call it and say really, do they have that? that is something i have not seen in our area, the d.c. metro area. ando have assault weapons,

i would challenge everyone in a realistic manner if we have how many school shootings, for us to be able to respond, we have to combat that. for every seven americans, we have at least one gun out there. it is our right, but we have to be able to challenge these situations. to be able to come to these situations and at least combat them as best as you can. a police officer a handgun is a lot less likely to stop the threat, rather than having asasult-style weapon. or let's just say a long gun. host: mark, how long have you been an officer? >> 23 years. i am familiar with weapon systems. we have an armored personnel

carrier, that was homeland security money. we cannot upgrade grenade launchers or air equipment that was hand-me-down from the government. ask, has your to job been made easier by having this equipment? i work in the d.c. metro area, and i would say this. i do not believe our department -- we do not get military hand-me-downs, but we do have military style weapons. ar-15.fle, and a lot of our officers carry those. does it make it easier? i think it does, hopefully we never have to use them. you look attee, if school shootings and seeing what these people are coming into school with, you often see ar

style high-capacity weapons. most officers would rather come in with the same or higher powered weapons. rather than going in with your handgun. you will does have a better chance of stopping that threat. thank you for calling in. christopher: you raise a couple of interesting points. point, werry picking have limited data available that viewers can look up, limited because the department of defense is secret about these things. that goes across the board. they provide limited information on allocation of these resources. is a pooroting example, talking about cherry picking. when they happened, they are dramatic events and stand out, but they are not good examples i think, for ramping up military equipment. a better example is the war on

drugs. of course, swat teams are perfect examples of what we call the boomerang effect. they started in the late 60's and were started right vietnam veterans, for the very purpose of writing military techniques, skills, and weapons back to the united states. the problem is, of course, that they were only going to be used in these outlier situations. situations where regular police could not do their job. was that behind this you need high-powered weapons and military strategies for these extreme situations. the use of swat teams has exploded throughout the 80's. now, annually, they are deployed somewhere 60 280,000 times a year. --60,000-80,000 times a year.

of course, the war on drugs has led to an expansion in gangs, high-powered weapons, and so on. addressing those root causes is perhaps the better way to deal with this type of situation. up, i would argue, ramping the military equipment to meet to the of situations where police officers face violent. today, many americans aren't comfortable in granting the government powers over their lives in the name of safety. the common refrain is if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. thatmplicit assumption is increased government powers will be used only to target criminals and potential rents -- threats. the key point is that the government promises citizen safety and security. it promises those things because

they ask you to trade off your liberty. of course, this is the greatest threat to liberty, granting government agents more power over your life. many americans have become indifferent to this. they will say things like "i am law-abiding and have nothing to --."your go well, you should care. by granting the government this power, you are not only giving up liberty in the short term but potentially in the future. we have isxperiment when you are thinking about these things, imagine your least favorite politician, now imagine that person wielding control of the levers of power. would you want them to have control over that apparatus and your life? most people would answer no to that. this discussion comes as

to sheriff deputies were killed while eating at a restaurant in laura. -- in florida. a gunman shot them while they were eating. carolinaand from north -- anne from north carolina. . >> i have a question. this is tyranny, increasing tyranny. freedoms.sing our it how can you talk with without looking at the economic situation. there is a very simple logic here. the united states has a lot of debt which will eventually lead to decreasing social advantages which willment,

inevitably lead to social discontent and riots. case, if we look at this underlying logical statement, we will need militarization of the police. christopher: thank you very much for that call. pessimisticry scenario, hopefully one that does not come to fruition. again, i think there are better ways to deal with the situation that ramping up domestic authorization. theme, theunderlying excessive debt and other aspects of the dire economic situation and the need to militarize, the common theme is government. the government is the entity that has issued the debts that you are raising as a concern. i think it is problematic to

identify that as an issue and then say we can turn to the same government to use military government to put down a potential riots that might occur. it seems to me a more logical solution would be to address the debt issue, to figure out ways to constrain government from spending more money. of course, this is a bipartisan issue and both sides of the political aisle have been terrible on this. they pay lip service to the idea of constraining government , buting, of limiting debt they are both very willing to issue more debt, to raise the debt ceiling. to use that to funnel resources to their cronies and constituents, with benefits them at the expense of taxpayers and future generations. while your points are well taken , i don't personally think that militarization is the solution to that. host: jd is calling from

oklahoma city. tell me what the percentage of policeman that are former military? christopher: we have the statistics in the book. i can't member off the top of my head, it has fallen over time. after world war ii, it was enormous. it is a large amount, but not a majority. a lot of former officers do go into the military. host: why do you ask? i was just wondering if military training against people , when you run into a police officer nowadays, you know he is kind of brutal.

host: i want to go to this tweet that most people consider the police the enemy. i am hesitant to go to the stereotypes which they all people are brittle, i do not think it is fair to make a blanket statement like that. think one of the reasons these issues matter is the way the issue has been framed. the relationship between citizens and their government is framed and viewed. certainly, there is a tendency to view certain people as enemies. here is the fundamental issue. the war on drugs and tear, these are unique wars. they have no clear enemy or victory.

here is odd, but it's one that the nice political talking point. more broadly, the reason that these are a concern is because they are global wars which ,nclude the domestic homefront the united states as part of the battlefield on the war on drugs and the war on terror and you and i and everyone else coming domestically, or potential suspect. withdifferent in past wars their was a clear enemy or group of enemy and they were abroad and not a fairly domestic. these wars are framed is that you and i and everyone else are potential suspects. it's not just the police, is the government in general. congress recently renewed parts of the patriot act that allow for surveillance. they view you and i is suspect and that's not the way it is supposed to be. the people in washington, d.c. are supposed to work for us, the citizens. we don't work for them, we

shouldn't have to cower from them, and we shouldn't have to demonstrate our innocence to them. that's not how our legal system in our society is set up. that's the concern. term one more tweet, the posse, taught us is meaningless if military functions are transferred to another state .nforced, military police guest: it was passed along time ago to separate the policing functions of the u.s. government to the military functions. you could not use the military domestically, politicians couldn't. is very idea that these functions are dramatically different and that the military and police have different purposes, and going back to the founding of this country, people understood that the military was apparatus for those in political power to wield tyranny over

citizens, which is why these type of rules that are -- and acts were passed. host: how do you feel about military -- national guard on the border? on trump,s too harsh because obama did it and bush did it before him, and the constant is government using them across administrations, is a bipartisan issue. the states are involved in this. president by themselves cannot require the national guard to the border. i think it has a minimal effect in terms of what is happening in the goal, it's more symbolism. but as get raises concern about the idea of extending and utilizing a military type organization on domestic soil. host: mike in front for, kentucky, democratic caller. are you there? one more time, mike from frankfurt.

let's try rick from kansas city, missouri. ? caller: i want to say good morning to youlet's try rick fr, missouri. both. host and guest. towers isl phone there any information on how location is chosen for those installations? it brings about for me another question of how the information is gathered and how it is used, piggybacking off of your comments on how citizens are viewed as suspect by law enforcement and the governments. ifind of have this question there is anyone who believes there is an abuse of our law enforcement and government when it comes to some of these types of procedures and devices, when gathering information on our citizens, a they are just in denial. can you comment on that for me? guest: we have very little information because the

government at various levels from states to the federal government has actively attempted to mask information. devicese suitcase type come a small devices and one local police department's at the state or local level get these devices, often times they have to enter into a nondisclosure agreement with the fbi or the agency that has given it to them. they will really happen. the utilize them, we know very little about how the decisions are made with the extent of information collected. you know it collects information on cell phones in the general area, you can't discriminate and just targeted individual person and their cell phone. police have been been known to engage in what is called parallel construction, they use the device to isolate the target and collect the information they want, but they don't want to reveal that used the stingray because it raises legal issues about warrantless surveillance

and fourth amendment type issues. so they will construct a parallel case using other pieces of evidence that they put together in hindsight to make the case without having to really use the stingray. you can look this up, there have been instances where people that have been charged with crimes have requested through the courts of the police reveal how they collected information and for instance that, they were using burgers and other devices they knew there was no way lease could gather through legal normal means. in the police then have typically dismissed the charges or pled them down to a lesser charge so they didn't have to reveal there were using the stingray technology. this is just one of many examples of the boomerang effect, how developing technologies to combat foreign combatants can end up at home and could be used against american citizens that have nothing at all to do with our national security, that are just for enforcing often times small crimes related to drugs and so on. a little more than 10

minutes left with our guest, mary is on the line in ashland, kentucky. republican caller. caller: i'm so glad i decided to keep watching this. you have some very excellent points about trying to treat the citizens and us losing our rights the more we let the governments pass these laws, because my experience with the police of late has not been very good, and i'm a normal citizen, i have been a taxpaying citizen, disabled now. in our town, they are very militant and even when i was robbed, they act like they didn't believe me. i have jewelry and medication stolen. and then i have a problem with my son, and they ended up attacking -- i got arrested ,ecause i had been drinking

even though my son had punched a hole in the wall and threatened to me. , however thently blue, i get a knock on the door and it was the police and they said we are responding to a call for this address and i said well i didn't call. i kept saying that and i didn't believe me. turned out i had let somebody live with me for a brief spell and they finally after much disagreement on my part saying i did not call you, they finally went back and found out it had been a dispatch sent out to find this person. and let them come in my house and look around to see i didn't have anything to hide. it could be getting into what our bill of rights is all about,

illegal search and seizure in the loss of our rights. reading your book, i just wanted to tell you about my experiences because it's been quite frightening any dealings i've had with the police. host: thank you for sharing. christopher coyne. guest: i'm sorry to hear about your situation. you raise a wide range of issues about the relationship between citizens and the police and one thing i want to make clear is not every issue related to police deals with militarization. that term can get overused sometimes as well. it doesn't have to be military equipment involved, they could be issues of responsiveness and relationships between citizens and police and so on. you raise important issues about issues of property and legal searches and so on that i think are important to think about. our guesthad -- host: had offered several books. economics andw of

currently at george mason university. center is aercator research institute at george mason university and they focus on the role of individual freedoms and economic freedoms among other issues for human well-being and flourishing. taking many of the ideas and insights of academics and introducing them and making them palatable for policymakers to be part of the broader policy discussion and washington, d.c. and elsewhere. host: you write the dynamics of the underground drug market you speak about are important for several reasons. police could claim that military training equipment were helpful and necessary to achieve the goals of the federal government which provided a critical argument in favor of

militarization. tell us more about the other points. guest: the fundamental issue is on the economics of prohibition. put aside drugs for a moment. the minute you make anything illegal, a black market will spring up for it. it has happened across time and space. we have another historical episode which is prohibition in the united states. we can look at what happened with alcohol was made illegal versus when it was legalized. and we know what happened when it was made illegal, we had al capone in the saint valentine's day massacre and machine guns and so on. when i was legalized, now we have alcohol sold in stores peacefully. we know what happens when drugs are made legal, we have a local pharmacist and peaceful social cooperation and exchange. when drugs are made illegal, we have drugs and violence and cartels. things are pushed underground levelople of a comfort these, when you're

engaging in illegal behavior underground, you can't turn to the police or the courts to resolve your disputes, which is why we tend to see violence. as the war on drugs has ramped havehe people involved increased the amount of weapons and the amount of violence in order to resolve disputes. this is problematic for a variety of reasons. it creates violence to massively and internationally. it also puts police who were tasked with enforcing drug laws in a difficult situation. the result has been part of this militarization and the argument is we need to meet weapons with more weapons. and that perhaps is one way to resolve the issue. it doesn't really resolve it. the other way is to address the root cause, or to remove the war on terror, which has an abysmal ,ailure on every single margin

based on the claims made by the proponents of the war of what was going to achieve in terms of reducing drug use, reducing availability and so on are it has failed on reasonable margin. host: dennis on the line from san diego, democratic caller for christopher coyne. i am dennis, a democrat and a former police officer with three comments. number one, former police few friends who were killed and wounded in the line of duty and i almost got killed or wounded and i had to buddies who committed suicide. second comments, the number one policein america for mistakes and misconduct is the following. unequal supervision and support of officers by their superior officers, meaning that there is too many officers that have too much supervision, not enough

support, and there's a small number of officers who get too much support and not enough supervision, this creates a workplace of too much stress and makes it too hard to focus on getting the best possible results for every single situation. in addition, you have the problem of every community in america, you're going to have certain citizens and their families who are allowed to get away with crimes because of the influence they have with sheriffs and police chiefs and my third and final comment is this, this new tv show called swat, that makes me want to vomit. to me, it's nothing but jingoistic stereotyping government propaganda to support something. the only reason i think they wanted swat in the beginning was engaged sheriffs and police chiefs a run around the affirmative-action laws, they

were angry that they were told they had to hire more mexican-americans and african-americans and it really takes them off. and swat gave them away so that they could pick and choose the way they used to discriminate and get away before. kind of making a police department within the police department. host: thanks for calling. you raise a several issues and i'm sorry about your experience in the experience of your colleague letter maddock incidents. -- had traumatic incidents. one of the things you brought up is that people are certainly well collected -- well-connected .eople have influence this is a very important point and it applies all levels of government, state, local, and federal. is at thethinking point you raise more broadly applies because it is an argument for limiting the

discretionary power of government. when you grant government at any , thatdiscretionary power also grants the individuals who are in power the ability to wield that discretion as they see fit. ,hat can relate to politics that can relate to policing, it can relate to any aspect of government. military contracting or any other part of government to my identified. -- you might identify. when you grant discretion, that is going to be used to reward one's friends and punish one's enemies. it can be one of constraining government and limiting the discretionary power, which is an important issue. host: gary in yuma, arizona. is in the title

of your book i wanted to say a couple comments here. should only be afraid of tyranny if we don't have any safeguards against it. the wisdom offor our founding fathers of the second amendment in that case. the second comments is about police officers. they have a terrible job and i don't think we should judge them prickly orettily -- brittle. society the worst in and after a time, they become guarded. they don't see the american people as the enemy as somebody said. i think they are there in the best interest in trying to give their best to service and protect. i think a couple of comments were wrong. thank you for our second amendment and thanks for your time. in a long, illinois,

and independent. caller: good morning. i'm calling, people who think it won't happen to them sunday, it will. professionalwoman, woman, used to own a bank and i'm retired. profiled as being a drug dealer because i had two corvettes. i live in cook county, illinois and he talked about the police being aggressive. i call them revenue police, revenue cops. they come at me with code violation and tickets and then house because you have no mortgage on your house, you become profiled just because corvettesoney and two , you are getting in court, they me for not having a

five dollar dog license, it's now cost me $15,000 in court. house ands in my padlocks on my door. they have before a fight with a boyfriend and a girl coming to my house, they came at me with a swat team. bank, i have no police record. when you see a police swat team in front of your house because some girl is jealous of your the, wed, to settle were told to sign a release to let the cops go because they made an error that they should not have came at us with a swat team. if you've never been arrested in your life, you don't assume your own town is going to come at you with a swat team and then come back at you years later before code tickets. i go into court because you cannot be arrested by fake cops.

they are code enforcement cops, they are not even allowed to arrest anybody, but they do and they come with guns drawn and they keep threatening to arrest you over code violation tickets. for: nancy, thank you calling us. final thoughts from chris coyne. guest: two points i will touch on, one is that this issue of policing for profit, think this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed and it raises a broader point which i will close on, which is instead of making claims about police being brittle or kind or the public interest, as a better way to think about is that police responders to incentives just like all of us do it all walks of life. we need to think about the incentives they face. in the war on drugs and the war on terror, they face the incentives to arrest people, to up their output stats. when it comes revenue generation, incentives for things like so i support teacher

which are links to the war on drugs in the war on terror, if they are able to obtain part of the resources they take through those programs, they have an incentive to take those programs. we have to be very careful. you raise a good point about your court experiences, the reality is we are all criminals. it sounds a shocking but there are so many laws on the books at the local, state, and federal level that we violate laws, even the best individuals and society violate laws on daily basis. if someone who has discretionary power wants to do you harm, they can find something you have done wrong and they can jimmy you up in the criminal justice system. as we give more power to governments and we have more laws and more rules and regret grant more discretion to government at all levels, we run this risk. the solution being to reduce the discretionary power granted to governments, even though they will argue they need that power in the name of protecting us. more often than not, it's exactly the opposite. host: our guest is chris coyne,

co-author of "tierney comes c-span's washington c-span's w, with every day with news and policy issues that. for national autism awareness month, we discussed autism spectrum disorder. and on our spotlight on magazines segment, we featured sojourner's magazine. ofdiscuss media coverage president trump. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> international cannabis policy summit was held earlier today