Jackboot Watch 3: High Times for the Quasi-Military
While the public attention has been diverted by the war on terror, in the background, quietly, another area of policing has grown exponentially – drug enforcement. The policing of drug use, production and commerce is where organised crime and terrorism legislation overlap and reinforce one another and the distinction between civil police and military action is all too frequently blurred or has disappeared completely. Federal and local law enforcement attempt to outdo each other in quasi-military gung-ho-ness, often to the detriment of the citizen and their civil rights.
Glenn Greenwald comprehensively catalogues the virtually unchecked internal militarism and the often summary justice meted out by drug law enforcement SWAT teams:
[…]
Indeed, with the advent of the war on plants, pills and powders, there has been an explosion in SWAT teams and no- knock drug raids around the country (why does Mount Orab, Ohio — population 2,701 — need its own 12-man SWAT team?). In the 1980s, there were about 3,000 annual SWAT team deployments each. Today, courtesy of the drug war, there are at least 40,000 a year.
These raids entail high risk of two serious dangers: officers understandably on edge ready to fire at the slightest provocation, and confused residents who may think their home is being invaded (some of whom may be legally or illegally armed). With the increase in the use of these tactics, therefore, comes an increase in the frequency of these kinds of stories:
8-year-old Xavier Bennett was accidentally shot to death by officers in a pre-dawn drug raid during a gunfight with one of Xavier’s relatives.
11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda was killed by a shotgun blast to the back while following police orders and lying face down on the floor during a SWAT raid.
84-year-old, bed-ridden Annie Rae Dixon was in her room at the time of a drug raid. An officer kicked open her bedroom door and accidentally shot and killed her.
56 year-old Alberta Spruill died of a heart attack during a wrong- address drug raid. The same thing happened to the elderely, Reverend Accelyne Williams in a separate wrong-address raid.
23-year-old Anthon Diotaiuto was working two jobs to pay for the house he lived in with his mother. He died after he was shot 10 times during a raid on his house that yielded 2 ounces of marijuana.
46-year-old Willie Heard thought his home was being invaded and he grabbed his unloaded rifle to protect his wife and daughter. He was shot to death in front of them. The police had gone to the wrong address.
During a drug raid, smoke grenades started the house on fire. 21- year-old John Hirko was shot to death in the back trying to escape the burning building. (The city of Bethlehem, PA is paying an $8 million settlement to his family.)
20 year-old Jose Colon made the mistake of visiting a house targeted for a raid. He was standing outside when SWAT shot him in the head.
45 year-old Ismael Mena was killed in his home by police. They were at the wrong address.
65 year-old Mario Paz died when he was shot twice in the back in his bedroom during a drug raid.
Well, but we are war. During war, collateral damage and friendly fire are to be expected in harsh battle zones. But is this the America we want? A country where we engage in military-style invasions of citizens? homes to prevent dried weeds and powders from being flushed?
[..]
The drug war and its odious arsenal are a danger to our society. They result in lost lives, police corruption, and a severe erosions of citizens’ rights — and familes destroyed by loved ones going to prison. Even if the drug war were considered a success (a truly absurd belief), it is surpassingly clear that the tools of prohibition are worse than the drugs prohibited. The Bush Administration?s expansion of the types and occasions for use of these weapons, while invoking and piggy-backing on terrorism as an excuse, is wholly unjustified; it is right for Feingold, and all of us, to just say no.
Tony Blair would like us in the UK to be in the same situation. A number of British police forces have already faced criticism and in some cases legal action, with over-zealous, military style drugs raids that have left innocent people wounded or dead.
The creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, often compared to the FBI, was announced on 9 February 2004 as one of the elements of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which also restricts protests and demonstrations in central London, and widens powers of arrest and the use of search warrants. Police powers will be much more sweeping:
Agency ‘to target brutal crime’
Mr Blair outlined new powers to ‘fight 21st Century crime’
Tony Blair says a new force will tackle the “brutal and sophisticated” criminal gangs of the 21st Century.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency, dubbed Britain’s FBI, will bring together more than 4,000 police, customs and immigration experts.
Soca “law enforcement officers”, with new multiple powers, will target international drug and people traffickers and fraudsters.
All very laudable, I’m sure. We can all get behind the fact there’re international criminals with multiple illegal interests who need to be apprehended and charged. But in the guise of being tough on crime those authoritarian ineffectuals, New Labour, have yet again expanded police powers beyond what is necessary to maintain order in a free society.
Mr Blair said the agency would exploit four important new powers:
Queen’s evidence: Prosecutors will be able to offer statutory deals – immunity or reduced sentences – where, previously, deals were only informal
Financial reporting orders: Courts can make orders, of up to 20 years, forcing criminals to provide bank statements to ensure they have no crime-related earnings
Disclosure notices – Courts can force suspects to answer questions or provide documents or face imprisonment or fines. Limits the right to silence
Law enforcement officers: Soca officers will have the multiple powers of police, immigration and customs officers,
But what oversight is there? Is SOCA subject to PACE or the Independent Police Complaints Authority? From the SOCA FAQ’s:
SOCA is subject to similar safeguards as police forces and other agencies. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will handle complaints against any SOCA officer in England and Wales. In general terms, the IPCC will handle complaints against SOCA Officers in the same manner as complaints against Police Officers or officers of HMRC. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI) will do so in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, this will be the responsibility of the Lord Advocate. There will also be a bespoke inspection regime for SOCA, provided through Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabularies (HMIC)
Unfortunately for anyone who wants to use these avenues of accountability, it seems SOCA is free from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act which tends to make any potential complaint against them moot – because if you can’t get the information about an unjust action, how can you complain about it?
It remains to be seen how SOCA exercise their new amalgamated powers in practice, but I’m not hopeful, based on previous police history. The fact that immigration powers are included along with a commitment to focus 40% of SOCA resources on drugs would seem to open the door to all sorts of potential miscarriages of justice.
The US has a written constitution in which the rights of the citizen agisnt state intrusion are codified, and just look what happens there. We British don’t. Will we soon be seeing more of this?
Read More : War on Drugs War on Terror SWAT SOCA
