Another day, another horrifying SWAT Team atrocity.

The difference is that this one made me worry that by focusing on the drug war aspects, I might be losing sight of the bigger, and more ominous picture.

Here’s what happened. In a 3:00 a.m. SWAT Team raid, police broke down the door of a house to look for a guy who didn’t live there and severely burned and horribly mutilated a 19 month old baby.

“They searched for drugs in the home and did not find any.”

In my usual way, I asked, “How long will Americans continue to tolerate such police state terrorism?” And even “Imagine the outcry if they started treating illegals the way they treat citizens.”

In response, a friend asked a good question:

By deputizing police forces to be a “military” force has the government found its way around posse comitatus?

A very, very good question — one which the focus mainly on the drug war may cause people to miss.

The National Review has an excellent article about the latest incident.

Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway. The ACLU reported recently that SWAT teams in the United States conduct around 45,000 raids each year, only 7 percent of which have anything whatsoever to do with the hostage situations with which those teams were assembled to contend. Paramilitary operations, the ACLU concluded, are “happening in about 124 homes every day — or more likely every night” — and four in five of those are performed in order that authorities might “search homes, usually for drugs.” Such raids routinely involve “armored personnel carriers,” “military equipment like battering rams,” and “flashbang grenades.”

Were the military being used in such a manner, we would be rightly outraged. Why not here? Certainly this is not a legal matter. The principle of posse comitatus draws a valuable distinction between the national armed forces and parochial law enforcement, and one that all free people should greatly cherish. Still, it seems plain that the potential threat posed by a domestic standing army is not entirely blunted just because its units are controlled locally. To add the prefix “para” to a problem is not to make it go away, nor do legal distinctions change the nature of power. Over the past two decades, the federal government has happily sent weapons of war to local law enforcement, with nary a squeak from anyone involved with either political party. Are we comfortable with this?

The Right’s silence on the issue is vexing indeed, the admirable attempts of a few libertarians notwithstanding.

(Emphasis added.)

The silence on the right is very troubling, for conservatives are among the few remaining champions of the dead white men who founded this country, and this sort of thing is precisely what the founding fathers intended to prevent.

Might the war on drugs be what causes conservatives to turn a blind eye? After all, it was Reagan’s baby, and the man is seen as a godlike figure who could do no wrong, so anything done in the name of the “war on drugs” is seen by many conservatives as tantamount to an extension of Reagan’s will. This means that anything seen as “backing down,” “going soft,” “getting all wobbly,” “being a squish,” etc. becomes a “betrayal” of Reaganism, conservatism, and even “conservative principles.”

Meanwhile, the militarization of police proceeds with a lack of genuine conservative opposition.

Any ideas on how to get these people to think?