So how does a word that means an agreement between a warrior and his lord come to signify both a territory and a local aristocrat? Let us turn to Grendel for a possible answer: "Hrothgar met with his council for many nights and days.... They built roads. The kings from whom they'd taken tributes of treasure they now asked for tributes of men.... And now when enemies from farther out struck at kings who called themselves Hrothgar's friends, a messenger would slip out, and...the forest would rumble with the sound of Hrothgar's horsemen. He would overcome them: his band had grown large, and for the treasures Hrothgar could afford now to give them in sign of his thanks, his warriors became hornets. New roads snaked out" (Gardiner 38). By swearing fealty to THE king, the lesser kings received protection and tributes of riches, land, and titles. This is the basic process by which kingdoms like England formed. Here we're dealing with the material aspects of the process (riches and land, e.g.), but there was also an entire ideology that went along with it. As Tacitus suggests, honor came from protecting the King on the battlefield, with one's own life if necessary. In return, if one survived, one might become a Count and rule over a small piece of the kingdom, something that would one day come to be known as a county (comitatus).
Counts still exist in certain places, but they don't keep bands of warriors anymore, and they don't protect the King, at least not with force of arms. And importantly, the major territorial units of the so-called civilized world, nowadays known as States or Countries, are usually not conceived of as extensions of the "body of the king" (Kingdoms, i.e.), and the concept of sovereignty or ultimate power is not perceived to be derived from the diving right of kings. Now, we have democracies and republics based upon the idea of the social contract, the notion that we agree to invest sovereign power in the State in exchange for the State's promise to protect certain "inalienable rights" we have, like the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Jefferson) as well as certain civil rights like those outlined in documents like the US Constitution.
And we certainly have counties still. There are five of them right here where we all live; they're also known as the boroughs of New York City. We do not have a Count of New York City, but we do have a mayor. He's far richer than Hrothgar ever dreamed of being (a net worth of about 20 BILLION dollars), but he's not a King either. He does, however, claim to have his own posse. Here's what he said recently: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world." We have read Balko, Baker, and Stamper. We've seen the evidence. Right here in our own counties, the NYPD has tanks, grenade launchers, and a surveillance system that is downright scary. In other words, the mayor is exactly right. Well, I say, "Bloomberg, get your posse outta my comitatus." What do you say?
22 comments:
Thanks for an enlightening class Robert!
The warrior and king relationship is the foundation of our government today. This evolution of the social contract is relevant because one must discuss the shift in their goals. When Bloomberg speaks of HIS NYPD “army”, he addresses it as HIS army, and not the “army” of the People of New York City. With that statement, he made a conscious decision to differentiate between the People and himself. One must wonder his goals for such an army if he considers the People of New York City to be of an Other. Much of a warrior’s agreement with a king is an understanding of trust. In the New York City, many minorities do not share that same trust the warriors had with their king with Bloomberg or his NYPD army.
The police are no longer engaged in the community as one and the militarianization of the police forces them to separate themselves from society. That separation creates barriers of understanding and disallows further discretion on a one on one basis. When the society perceives the police as an Other most civilians will not report a crime. This is crucial because the police force depends on civilians to report crimes in order to catch those who break the law.
I mentioned/joked in class that a decade more of our 'police force' acting with blind, rigid obedience and we'd make the Nazi's look like hillbillies. We, as college students, know it's a bad thing when the police force turns into this or when a famous mayor brags about having his own army, but what does the rest of the public really think? Do they just think it's cool that someone has their own army or that our nation has to be harsh to protect us? Doesn't the human race need a king with an army to 'admire' and a monster with a past to hate...the more powerful the army, the more respected the country and the leader, I don't know if we can stop at this point...
The warrior and king relationship should be the foundation of our government. But too often the state/city (warrior) oversteps its boundaries and challenges the king. Lately the “king” our federal government has accepted their loss of power with this new idea that the states should be ready. Yes states should be ready for the possibilities’ of an attack, but when there is a possibility that peoples civil liberties may be violated we need to avoid this. At times many people feel that to properly protect themselves it is just to allow other people’s liberties must be violated. But this is not true in fact when giving up your own civil liberties to enhance protection against an “enemy” these same people are in trouble of endangering their own safety.
After 9/11 we were willing give up many of our civil liberties on a local and federal level to protect ourselves from the “other” or the “enemy”. Sadly our “enemy” usually has a designated face. With the imagination of who the enemy is Bloomberg’s army attacks only a given few. On a local level the stop and frisk was used to protect ourselves from crimes looking at these statistics we can see that most of the people who were searched were young men of color. After 9/11 Kelly and Bloomberg were willing to violate the rights of Muslims to “protect” the city. Their idea of protecting the city has caused NYC or the warrior to violate the rights of the king or the powers of the federal government. Kelly and Bloomberg used the NYPD to spy on young Muslims in different colleges in the northeast whether if it was in Newark or Philadelphia they have overstepped their boundaries. Bloomberg defends his “armies” actions by claiming that “Everything the NYPD has done is legal, it is appropriate, it is constitutional,” he went as far to claim that “they are permitted to travel beyond the border of New York City to investigate cases.” Spying on people’s life’s because of their religion is not constitutional and the NYPD is trying to stop terrorism in an entire region is not the job of a state or even a city.
What I am trying to point out is that we should be willing to protect ourselves on any and every level of government. But when we are giving up certain liberties for more protection we should be aware that there is a chance that the state could ignore others liberties and the job they are designated as a city government.
When I first read Robert's post, I wasn't thinking about how the NYPD as an army could be a problem for me if they're still serving the public, which I should be a part of. However, it became clear after thinking more about what would happen if the police gained too much power and corruption was a problem. This became even more evident as I began reading Roberto's response. In my journal, I wrote that I didn't mind the police having all of the extra equipment, as long as they use it for specific purposes. I don't expect them to bring tanks, grenade launchers, or even assault rifles in normal situations. Some things like the tanks are probably completely unnecessary and just outright dangerous (at least the grenade launchers can possibly shoot out gas canisters).
The NYPD spying on Muslim students outside of New York City is new information for me. I think it should definitely not be allowed, despite what Mayor Bloomberg said. It sounds like the NYPD is outside of their jurisdiction. Whether or not the decision to follow the students is right or not, I wonder how the police officers who did the following felt. If I was in their situation, I would not be happy if I had to follow somebody outside of the city that I'm supposed to be working in.
I think that the method of promising security establishes a flawed base in order to allow the militarization of the police. When I was watching the video in class, I thought about everyday police interaction. The community would associate with the police often, but today we see SWATS only and become fearful of them. The method of policing has evolved to the point that we are fearful of them rather then dependent on them. The police were put to reduce crime and fight for safety in NY. Mayor Bloomberg, however, has referred to him as an army making it seem like he is going to war with someone. Will we continuing to permit victimization among our society at the expense of police brutality to implement security?
Bloomberg's use of the word army to describe the NYPD reminds me of two fabulous works of non-fiction by Susan Sontag, ILLNESS AS A METAPHOR and AIDS AND ITS METAPHORS. Both works basically show how the metaphors we use to talk about disease end up "othering" people with illness. (They are beautifully written works, if anyone is looking for more stuff to read!) Metaphors, we all remember, are when one word is used to talk about another word: that guy is a pig, that classroom is a jail, the NYPD is an army, for examples. Sontag's point about metaphor is that once we start talking about something as if it were something else (not LIKE something else -- that's a simile and not as dramatic an equation as a metaphor), then we start thinking that it IS that thing. We use animal metaphors to talk about people, they become animalized in our minds. We talk about the NYPD as an army, it is so much easier to forget how important it was to keep those ideas clear and distinct.
Re Simon's point about feeling gradually uncomfortable with the stockpile of military-grade equipment. I share his discomfort. When I was reading Robert's assigned readings, I kept thinking: if we have it, we'll use it. Why else would you show up anywhere in a small county in Georgia in a tank other than that it is there and if you don't drive it from time to time it will fall into disrepair? This is the argument about why it is also so urgent to reduce our nuclear stockpile. While mutually-assured destruction would keep rational people from using nuclear weapons (presumably), does anyone really believe that if they continue to sit around, they won't be used sometime by someone?
70% of respondents to a Crain’s NY poll thought that the NYPD should monitor Muslim student groups. An equal number of people responding to a Police Magazine poll said that the NYPD should be allowed to shoot down civilian aircraft if they believed they were poised for a terrorist attack. (Granted these are not incredibly scientific polls but I do think they tap a broad stream of public sentiment.) This morning I heard Ed Rendell, former democratic governor of Pennsylvania, talk about the extraordinary position that NY was in because of its high relevance as a potential target and how militarization had to be understood within that context. Outside of the academic world and perhaps the ACLU, it is hard to locate anti-militarization views. Cynical on the one hand, Americans are quite naïve on the other, and tend to trust government and law enforcement for the most part. If anything, we tend to label rightwing anti-government zealots as rather paranoid and crazy. Or, when it is the left protesting police interventions, we condemn them as unwashed anarchists. Yet, we would be wise to look at the history of police militarization in other countries rather than insisting that we are uniquely protected against abuses.
Police in other countries often participate in coups, although they rarely are the face of takeover, preferring a more covert role. We certainly have trouble recognizing the police as a political organization and yet, in other countries, they have often provided new local power bases in times of civil unrest or national threat. What begins as the understandable economic attraction of being offered superior hardware on the cheap evolves into the concerted development of an agenda that justifies the need for increased firepower. Cynthia Enloe’s cross-national work on policing has documented the global tendency to militarize police function over the last 60 years. A natural consequence of the modernization of criminal enterprises, particularly in the technological realm-think everything from identity theft to online Jihad magazines-to some degree necessitates an increased dependence on highly specialized intelligence apparati for law enforcement, while the nature of insurgencies, ethnic violence, etc. have given police in other countries permission to maintain domestic order by any means necessary. One of the worst signs of encroaching corruption, says Enloe, are police recruiting practices that over time seem to favor one particular ethnic or racial group over another. It would be interesting to look at those statistics in the United States.
So, the NYPD is not alone in these practices. Indeed we are behind most of the rest of the world. It has not augured good outcomes elsewhere; I am not sure why it should do so here.
Robert's class about the militarization of the police force was really informative and interesting. I never knew that the police force carried such equipment that an army would have. I am thinking the police would only use that equipment against it's own community. What does that say about the relationship between the public and the police force. It is weak and dysfunctional. In one of the articles, it talked about how the Army's mission differs from that of the police force. By militarizing the police force, it can automatically change the mindset of the police force. The outcome would be more enhanced security, but brute interaction with the public. After seeing that video, I was shocked and had such anger on the actions that were being played towards the public. What if someone died because of the brutal force of the police, would the police get in trouble?
But then again, the police are like puppets because they only follow orders. So, we cannot blame them for their actions because they have no say. Maybe the cops did not want to perform the order but it is either they lose their jobs or they follow the commands.
Just from reading all your posts, I want to throw some things out there that strike me and then move on to discuss some implications:
1) Christine's, Cynthia's, and Gary's point about how militarization alienates the police from the community.
2) Dani and Professor Stein's point about how most people think what's happening is not only OK but good and necessary.
3) Roberto's point about the danger of ceding too much civil-liberty ground in the name of "security" and how the civil-liberty ground we DO cede is not pulled out from under everyone's feet equally.
4) Simon's point about the police gaining too much power.
5) Professor Stein's point about American naiveté and lack of historical consciousness.
6) Professor Reitz's point about the plain danger of just HAVING the stuff.
7) And Gary's point about the police blindly following orders.
Well, for me, all of this comes together in a very frightening way. Every time there's any kind of debate about the kind of thing we're discussing here--a consideration of the wisdom of giving the state more power (permission to detain citizens indefinitely without charge or trial, permission to tap our phones, e.g.)--someone invariably says, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." This always irks me beyond belief because it assumes that what needs to be hidden and what doesn't is completely static, that it never changes. This utterly contradicts the lessons of history. Before the Nuremburg Laws in Germany, no one had to hide that they were Jewish; after them, people deemed "Aryans" were citizens and those seen not to be of "German blood" were classified as subjects of the state. Things can change drastically, suddenly, and catastrophically. So it IS dangerous for domestic police forces to have military equipment, and for them to be so alienated from the community, and for them to be so inclined to just follow orders (Does Adolf Eichenbaum ring a bell?). I live in a neighborhood with a large Arab/Muslim community (the diversity of this neighborhood is one of the most fabulous things about it), and I swear I hear helicopters outside sometimes. The civil-liberty ground we're ceding is already not being pulled out from under everyone's feet equally. In Arizona, a law making "ethnic studies" has passed!! It is fueled by anti-immigrant (South and Central American) sentiment.
The other point everyone who thinks the NYPD should be able to shoot planes out of the sky misses is that WE ALREADY HAVE A MILITARY, a vast one that dwarfs any in human history! The last thing we need a stasi police or a gestapo with tanks.
See that's what I get for getting riled up: it's Adolf Eichmann, NOT Eichenbaum, which is the last name of a friend of mine who wouldn't appreciate the slip-up.
As many of you mentioned, I think Mayor Bloomberg would argue that the "comitatus" we all currently reside in is one of the safest since 9/11 because of this "posse". As pointed out, many are willing to compromise certain civil liberties and freedom in exchange for "beefed-up" security practices which includes paramilitary tactics by the police force in an attempt to combat the threat of terrorist attacks.
When I thought about this thought pattern, I thought "what would be the terrorists' take on this?" They are probably saying "we won!" or, "we're winning!" Due to their attacks on American soil, Americans have been forced to change their thought pattern forever. The rippling effect of the attacks has instilled fear in the hearts and minds of a large population of the American people. In New York, we all can see the various post 9/11 procedures implemented within our everyday travels. The NYPD has become militarized in their weapons AND tactics. As the Balko reading stated, "..literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens." So whether indirectly, it appears the terrorists' mission continues to be carried out with the help of America's own police forces.
I think what should be more disturbing than the militarized weapons and equipment is the militarized mentality many members of the police force has adapted. As the reading also suggests, many officers display an immaturity about them which leads them to resort to "militarized tactics" as oppose to a more community policing. If you accompany that with the weaponry at their disposal, it's a recipe for disaster.It seems like the police department that Bloomberg refers to as his army has adapted a "VAPORIZE FIRST, MIRANDIZE LATER" method of policing. But how do you satisfy those who actually feel safe with the knowledge that the posse within their comitatus has access to the equipment to address terror threats and attacks AND those citizens uncomfortable with such equipment in the hands of incompetent professionals?
Maybe you can allow police forces certain equipment to protect the community. However, implement strict state/federal regulations restricting where, when and how these equipment(and specific tactics) can be used. Definitely not to break up gambling sessions, or to enforce alcohol licensing regulations. And most certainly not to be used for anything regarding student loans!*peaks through my front door peephole*
Robert, I totally love the blog title! It made me laugh. Thank you for that, and also an informative class. Who knew (excuse my French) Bad*** Bloomberg would so confidently brag about having his own army in the NYPD. Reading that sentence alone just cluttered my brain with many injustice scenarios. Not to mention the word, dictator. To some extent, I agree with Christine on the grounds that police officers aren’t engaged much in the community, which separates them from the people they patrol. I say to a certain extent because reality is, they are engaged, engaged more negatively than positively.
Now, imagine what Occupy Wall Street would look like if the U.S. officers followed the method that is implemented in England. The English police consider themselves “civilians in uniform” and are seen by others as not only capable but also friendly and helpful because they do not consciously separate themselves from the people they police. The English police also refrain from carrying firearms. During violent confrontations, officers are trained to protect themselves using physical force. If police officers in New York City adopted this approach, then they’d promote a sense of comfort with the community. I also think that tension can also be reduced through foot patrolling rather than riding through neighborhoods in police cars. Foot Patrolling has the advantage of close citizen contact and is proactive rather than reactive. It addresses neighborhood problems before they become crimes. As a result, many problems can be stopped at its root before they escalate into more severe crimes. Officers on foot patrol would also, with the help of the community, be better able to deter crime and apprehend criminals. In addition, if foot patrols are added in neighborhoods, citizen’s satisfaction with police may increase and levels of fear in the community decrease significantly.
I think if police officers build a greater appreciation for the values of the neighborhood, which has the potential to help communities work with the police to make their neighborhoods safer. This change will target the root causes of crime, which will eventually lead to greater changes in the criminal justice system. If crimes are reduced, then effective punishments will replace unjustly severe punishments and that will eventually lead to a more efficient and fair court system. All the above-mentioned efforts can build an overall connection with the public and eradicate the idea of “it’s the people against the police officers.”
Robert, you have unleashed a cascade of thoughts.
I am thinking of the domino effect of our policies. For example, Popy cites the British police force, one of the few world-wide who have not militarized their operations. (I believe they do now carry some small arms but are trained to use them only as a last resort.) But one of reasons they can do this is because they are in a country with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The police do not feel overmatched by the criminal population. Indeed, the British response to a spate of violent crime in the 80s was to greatly expand anti-gun legislation. We have done the opposite here, upping the ante at every turn. I still shake my head when I hear that the political response to the shootings at Virginia Tech was to advance legislation that would allow firearms on college campuses, ostensibly so students could "protect" themselves.
The other thing I wanted underline was Robert's reminder that things can change fast, dramatically and catastrophically. I once read about a Holocaust survivor in NYC who never left home without a sandwich in her handbag because who knew when the police might stop her taxi, order her arrest, and send her to a place where she could starve to death.
Police power, even in a far less horrific circumstance, can grow very suddenly and be almost impossible to turn back. After all they have the tanks and we have... only our blog. That might be a good thing to think about when we do Simon's assignment about the Internet on Thursday.
Popy, I'm really glad you brought the British example into the discussion. It reminds us that there's an alternative. And then, Professor's Stein's point about how different England's gun laws are from ours is EXTREMELY relevant. I hadn't thought of this (and I dare to call myself a materialist!). We cannot forget the role of the gun lobby in our gun laws. We also have a massive security industry for which the perpetual production of weapons, high-tech surveillance systems, and military equipment is necessary for their survival. I read an interesting article about the relationship between Israel's move toward high-tech securitization and the country's growing security industry. Here at home, when new, state-of-the-art weapons and equipment replace the old stuff, what do you do with the outmoded stuff? Balko outlines what pretty well I think. He also discusses the laws that made the distribution of this equipment to police forces possible. It would be interesting to look more closely at those laws--who wrote them, sponsored them, lobbied for them. Timothy reminds us that 9-11 made us all afraid; now we've reached a point of a culture of fear, where fear has become an ideological construct, akin to what Tacitus says about how it was disgraceful to leave the King on the battlefield. When there's an ideology like that, it's useful to look at it materially--who benefits from it?
Delusions of grandeur!! That's how I sum up Bloombergs comment. Michael Bloomberg, has become the ascendant avatar of American autocratic ***-hattery. Please excuse my french as well; In declaring himself the commander of the "seventh largest army in the world," he's not only horribly over-estimating his own degree of authority, importance, and control, but his 'troop strength' as well. Bloomberg's boast about how the proximity of the United Nations headquarters gives him some special entre into the realm of international affairs overlooks two critical mitigating factors.
International relations requires both tact and diplomacy, and he is clearly sorely lacking in both. In short, Mr. Mayor, keep your day job for as long as the good citizens of NYC continue to suffer your already overly elongated stay in office. If only New York had a process for recalling a mayor.
Also, I cant get over the disturbing idea of 7 m-16's given to a group of specialized law enforcement in a place that's low on crime. Where's the revolution?
Thank you Robert for such an array of great readings. Your class was one to top .
And speaking of guns, from this morning's NY Times...
In 1993, Virginia enacted a one-per-month limit on gun purchases after a federal study showed that two out of five handguns taken from New York City crime scenes were purchased in Virginia’s freewheeling gun markets. Now the state seems determined to resume its destructive “iron pipeline” role. On Tuesday, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed a law repealing the gun purchase limit.
RE: Virginia and guns--Truly frightening...and backwards. The Times statistic is unbelievable... Probably no one will read this, but thanks to everyone for their thoughtful contributions to this discussion.
You're wrong Robert , I read it:)
A last note, the NYPD 's own Ray Kelly made a statement saying that the "...NYPD's blant disregard for conduct and civic duty had gone on for too long and will no longer be swept under the rug". This in response to the recent DUI that a police officer had in uniform in a squad car after leaving a dedication to the fallen officer Figowski where there was an array of sergeants and lieutenants and yet no one interjected. Looks to me like joining the NYPD isn't as glamorous as they advertise. Oh yeah, and last year the NYPD had a total of 73 DUI within the precincts ( off duty officers). I guess they are the exception.
Post a Comment