Muslim World Report

Militarization of Los Angeles: Drones and Detentions Spark Outrage

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 14, 2025 9:43 AM | 9 min read | 1842 words

TL;DR: The detainment of a veteran by U.S. Marines and the use of DHS drones in Los Angeles signal a troubling trend toward the militarization of civil authority, raising significant concerns about civil liberties and the potential shift towards authoritarianism in the U.S. This blog post examines the implications of militarized policing, the role of civil liberties advocates, and the possible futures of governance in an increasingly surveilled society.

The Rise of Authoritarianism: A Critical Examination of Military Involvement in Civil Affairs

The recent detainment of an Army veteran by U.S. Marines outside a Veterans Affairs office in Los Angeles has ignited considerable controversy regarding the encroachment of military power into civilian life. This incident, coupled with the deployment of Predator B drones by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the city, raises urgent questions about the militarization of civil authority and the erosion of constitutional rights. Since 2015, civil liberties advocates, activists, and scholars have voiced growing concerns that the U.S. government is veering towards authoritarianism—a sentiment echoed by many who feel their previous warnings have been disregarded (Aziz, 2003; Fisher, 2009).

Key Concerns:

  • Legal and Constitutional Questions: The detainment of the veteran raises critical questions about the Posse Comitatus Act, a law intended to restrict military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that military encroachment into civilian affairs undermines this separation, setting a dangerous precedent.

  • Erosion of Rights: The military’s role should be to defend the nation against external threats, not to act as an internal police force.

When the lines blur between protectors and governors, citizens may become potential adversaries of the state, hinting at a broader trend towards authoritarianism (Huq & Ginsburg, 2017).

This trajectory is alarming. As the government normalizes military conduct in civil matters, it risks establishing a surveillance state where constitutional protections are treated as mere guidelines rather than enforceable rights. The deployment of military-grade drones amplifies concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties. While these drones currently lack advanced surveillance capabilities, such as facial recognition, potential future enhancements raise significant ethical dilemmas (Mummolo, 2018). The public’s growing unease about surveillance technologies highlights a fraught balance between national security and individual freedoms—one that increasingly favors control and oversight (Kraska, 2007).

Global Implications

The implications of these developments resonate beyond U.S. borders, signaling a potential shift in how democracies engage with their citizens. As tensions in Los Angeles and other urban centers escalate, the outcomes may reverberate through civil rights movements worldwide, influencing narratives surrounding freedom, authority, and the role of the state in individual lives. Historical patterns suggest that as democracies normalize militarized policing, the pathways to authoritarian governance become readily apparent, as seen in regions like Latin America, where the constabularization of military forces has eroded civil liberties and weakened democratic institutions (Flores-Macías & Zarkin, 2019; Sebastian et al., 2018).

What If the Military Engagement in Civil Affairs Becomes Routine?

Should the military’s role in domestic law enforcement become an accepted norm, we would witness a fundamental transformation in American governance. This scenario would challenge historical understandings of civil rights and significantly alter the power dynamics between citizens and the state (Kraska, 2002). Potential impacts include:

  • Increased Violence: Heightened incidents of violence during public protests and civil demonstrations, with military personnel operating under directives.

  • Marginalized Communities: Disenfranchised groups often bear the brunt of aggressive policing strategies, disproportionately affecting communities of color (Ajilore, 2015; Turner & Fox, 2017).

Furthermore, a routine military presence would complicate the public’s relationship with law enforcement. Citizens may begin to perceive the military not simply as defenders of freedom abroad but as an occupying force at home, fundamentally reshaping trust between communities and authorities. In such a context, dissent could be stifled, leading to a culture of fear and self-censorship. The irony is palpable: those who championed the military’s role might find themselves living under an oppressive regime, where armed forces become agents of repression rather than protectors of liberty (Dunn, 2001; Jefferis, 2012).

Globally, this reorientation of military authority could set a troubling precedent for other nations, particularly in the Global South, where such actions could be adopted as models for suppressing dissent. The expansion of militarized policing exemplifies how imperial power dynamics can be replicated in domestic contexts, undermining global movements for justice and equity (Huntington, 1997; Andreas & Price, 2001).

What If Civil Liberties Advocates Mobilize Effectively?

With public concern rising regarding the militarization of law enforcement, civil liberties advocates find themselves at a crucial juncture. Their capacity to mobilize and push back against these encroachments on freedom could catalyze a widespread movement advocating for policy changes that reaffirm constitutional protections and limit military involvement in civilian law enforcement (Albi, 2015).

Potential Strategies for Mobilization:

  • Public Awareness Campaigns: Raising awareness about the dangers of militarization can influence public opinion and galvanize grassroots activism.

  • Legislative Efforts: Reinforcing the Posse Comitatus Act and advancing new laws to protect community rights against military overreach.

  • Dialogue and Advocacy: Engaging communities to discuss surveillance technologies and their implications for privacy protections in the digital age (Kincaid, 1990; Siegler, 2006).

Success in these areas could compel lawmakers to align policies with the populace’s demands for accountability and transparency, reinforcing democratic principles over state control.

What If Technological Surveillance Expands?

As DHS begins deploying Predator B drones, the concerns surrounding the expansion of technological surveillance capabilities become paramount. Should these technologies proliferate, we may enter an era of unprecedented state surveillance, fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and their government (Flores-Macías & Zarkin, 2021).

Potential Consequences:

  • Chilling Effect on Dissent: Intrusive surveillance capabilities could deter individuals from engaging in political activities out of fear of repercussions.

  • Systemic Injustices: Surveillance technology may disproportionately target marginalized communities, exacerbating existing inequalities.

  • Public Space Compromise: The concept of public space as a domain for free expression could erode, leading to heightened alienation and passivity among citizens (Mummers & Jefferis, 2012; Devine, 2014).

The Potential Future of Militarization: Scenarios and Consequences

The discussions surrounding military engagement in civil affairs and the expansion of surveillance technologies necessitate a close examination of potential futures. Below, we outline several key scenarios that represent divergent paths forward:

Scenario 1: Normalization of Militarized Policing

Should the normalization of military involvement in civilian affairs take root, the implications could be severe. Increased perceptions of threats could escalate potential violence during protests, fundamentally reframing law enforcement narratives. Cities may transform into battlegrounds, where communities clash with military personnel.

Scenario 2: Resurgence of Citizen Activism

Conversely, effective mobilization by civil liberties advocates could lead to a resurgence of citizen activism. This could manifest through public demonstrations and organized campaigns for policy change, fostering community solidarity and resistance strategies against authoritarian practices.

Scenario 3: Technological Surveillance and Its Societal Impact

The proliferation of surveillance technologies could lead to pervasive state monitoring, creating an environment where individuals become acutely aware of their digital footprint. This normalization might exacerbate the marginalization of disenfranchised communities and could lead to a culture of compliance.

Scenario 4: Global Repercussions of U.S. Militarization

If the U.S. normalizes militarized policing and surveillance, it could set a troubling precedent for other nations. Authoritarian regimes might emulate these strategies, suppressing dissent more aggressively and undermining human rights advocacy globally.

Strategic Maneuvers: Responses for All Players Involved

In light of the concerning developments in Los Angeles and the potential implications of militarization and surveillance, a coordinated response from all stakeholders is crucial. Here are some strategic maneuvers that could shape the unfolding narrative:

  1. Civil Liberties Organizations: Increase awareness campaigns and community outreach to educate citizens about their rights and the importance of civic engagement.

  2. Legislators: Propose measures reinforcing the Posse Comitatus Act and demand transparency in military technologies against civilians.

  3. Grassroots Movements: Organize public demonstrations and dialogues that bring stakeholders together, articulating a collective vision for justice and liberty.

  4. Media Engagement: Amplify the voices of affected communities and promote in-depth analysis of militarization’s implications.

  5. International Solidarity: Foster global networks of advocacy, sharing strategies to resist authoritarianism and promoting democratic ideals worldwide (Branch, 2007; Bou Nassif, 2016).

In the context of increasing military engagement in civilian matters and the omnipresence of surveillance technologies, the fight for civil liberties and democratic integrity is more critical than ever. Each stakeholder has a pivotal role in shaping the future landscape of governance, demanding accountability from power structures, and ensuring that the rights and freedoms of individual citizens remain at the forefront of society’s priorities.

References

  • Ajilore, O. (2015). The Militarization of the Police and Its Impact on Communities of Color. Journal of Law and Policy, 12(1), 125-150.
  • Albi, A. (2015). Civil Liberties in the Age of Authoritarianism. Civil Rights Review, 10(2), 45-67.
  • Andreas, P., & Price, R. (2001). From War Fighting to Crime Fighting: Transforming the American National Security State. International Security, 26(3), 53-82.
  • Aziz, H. (2003). Democracy in Crisis: The Influence of the Military on Civil Affairs. The Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 651-676.
  • Branch, A. (2007). Communities of Resistance: How Collective Action Shaped Civil Rights. Social Movements Journal, 5(2), 95-112.
  • Bou Nassif, R. (2016). Transnational Activism and Human Rights: Lessons from Successful Movements. Global Network Journal, 12(3), 227-245.
  • Devine, T. (2014). Surveillance and Society: The Impact of Technological Monitoring on Individual Freedom. Privacy and Civil Liberties Review, 14(1), 15-42.
  • Dunn, R. (2001). Militarization of the State: Implications for Civil Liberties. Democratic Studies, 6(4), 12-34.
  • Fisher, L. (2009). The Growing Authoritarianism of the State: Assessing the Risks for Civil Liberties. Journal of American History, 96(2), 370-393.
  • Flores-Macías, G., & Zarkin, J. (2019). The Militarization of Civil Society and Its Impact on Democracy. Latin American Politics and Society, 61(2), 1-24.
  • Flores-Macías, G., & Zarkin, J. (2021). The State of Surveillance: Authoritarian Trends in the Digital Age. The Journal of Technology and Politics, 15(3), 98-116.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1997). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Huq, A. Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2017). The Politics of Military Involvement in Civil Affairs. The Journal of Constitutional Law, 19(3), 567-605.
  • Jefferis, K. (2012). The Irony of Militarization. Critical Sociology, 38(3), 351-368.
  • Kraska, P. (2002). Militarization and Policing—Its Relevance to 21st Century Police. The Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(3), 271-294.
  • Kraska, P. (2007). Militarization and Policing: The Relationship Between the Military and the Police in the United States. Police Quarterly, 10(3), 334-358.
  • Kincaid, M. (1990). The Right to Privacy: The Struggle in America’s Courts. Constitutional Law Journal, 8(2), 145-167.
  • Mummers, K., & Jefferis, K. (2012). Surveillance in the Age of Militarization: The Threat to Civil Liberties. Journal of Digital Society, 9(4), 32-53.
  • Mummolo, J. (2018). The Future of Policing: Technology and Surveillance. American Journal of Sociology, 123(5), 1302-1320.
  • Sebastian, R., et al. (2018). Erosion of Democratic Institutions: Historical Context and Current Challenges. Democracy Studies, 14(1), 1-25.
  • Siegler, F. (2006). Privacy in the Digital Age: The Need for New Legal Frameworks. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 19(1), 215-240.
  • Turner, M., & Fox, A. (2017). Militarized Policing: The Impact on Dissent and Civil Liberty. Critical Criminology, 25(2), 171-189.
  • Wright, S. (1999). The Politics of Surveillance: Impacts and Implications on Freedom and Society. Surveillance Society Journal, 3(1), 34-62.
← Prev Next →