If they had not been monitoring intelligence and something big happened then they did not do enough; if they do enough and nothing big happens then they are abusing their power. No matter which way it goes we all get to wiggle our finger and be outraged.
I don't get it. By "something big" do you mean another incident of police misconduct? Or the natural, outraged response to that misconduct?
Otherwise how is this catch-22 relevant to the events surrounding George Floyd's murder and the surveillance measures established in response to the protests?
I can not enumerate the list of possible threats but at the extremes would be plans use molotov cocktails on police cars up to plans to blow up public buildings (think Oklahoma City level). Anything between these extremes is possible and in a situation as hot as the Floyd murder protests, the police are expected to protect the public even if they caused the problem to begin with.
This is an odd comment because it reads like something you would post on a thread about the FBI or CIA. I have to assume you didn't read the article and just posted something in response to the headline. This is a system to surveil protestors and protect status quo among the police. Literally the first sentence in the article would tell you such:
> Law enforcement agencies in Minnesota have been carrying out a secretive, long-running surveillance program targeting civil rights activists and journalists in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Run under a consortium known as Operation Safety Net, the program was set up a year ago, ostensibly to maintain public order as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin went on trial for Floyd’s murder.
I did read it and I use intelligence instead of "secretive, long-running surveillance" because it is a word that describes the same thing without spicing it up with evil intent.
What is your suggestion for what they should have done then?
Culturally we need to decide what our priorities are: do we sacrifice privacy and freedom for the appearance of safety or do we accept less promises of safety for more freedom and privacy.
My point was not to support the decision the police made. It was, rather, let's not give the police a pass because they're "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I agree with you. I would rather the police have a principaled stand for freedom and privacy, and not murder people. Then if something big happens, as GP opined, we as a society need to not crucify them. The police are not and should not be a guarantee that bad things won't happen. We should hold them accountantable for what they do, not hold them responsible for preventing all evils.
If we get to vote on it, I vote to limit government surveillance of citizens. Short of society making that decision and understanding the consequence, I will try to have empathy for the folks who have to make hard decisions that have no correct answer.
Decades ago I was warning people about surveillance state, and it's too late now to stop it.
I perceive these programs only exist now _because_ protests that have turned into destructive mobs and previously leaders on the fence (in private) now are being persuaded to take the only action they can, secret programs.
Social justice movements are their own worst enemy. We all want change, but when a leaderless group of people make too many people nervous about the randomness of the results they achieve, you get these kinds of results from the government.
And when a group with a leader and a concrete goal achieves results you get COINTELPRO[1]. There's a reason modern protest movements are "leaderless". It's in part to avoid the kind of disruption operations hierarchical groups are vulnerable to.
There's no objectively "winning" hand here. Governments are always going to try to surveil and subvert protests and protestors. Peaceful or otherwise. Thinking that this is a new phenomenon seems ahistorical.
> you get these kinds of results from the government
This is basically because the government involved were willing to anything other than actually prosecute Derek Chauvin. As soon as it got to actual court there was no need for further protests on behalf of George Floyd. It is shameful that it took that much street protest to get the government to do something that it should have done anyway.
>Social justice movements are their own worst enemy. We all want change, but when a leaderless group of people make too many people nervous about the randomness of the results they achieve, you get these kinds of results from the government.
If it weren't for Black protesters and BLM "making people nervous" and forcing them to actually pay attention, George Floyd's killers would probably have commendations now, and the racist narratives that defended his murder would be accepted as status quo truth. Progressive change never happens when the powers who govern the status quo are allowed to remain comfortable.
We really need someone to watch the watchers. Like internal affairs but not part of the police. A group that has police powers over the police but not over the citizenry, and who is not subject to police authority. Give them legally mandated access to all police records.
It seems obvious. Which probably means I'm missing something. Or it could just be that the police apparatus is so deeply embedded into the state political system already that it's not possible to put a check on their power. Although some US states have citizen initiatives, so we could force the issue. But then again, many citizens like a strong, unaccountable police force, so that is hardly a guarantee of success.
That makes more sense. I get that it is mostly a states rights issue, but I have always thought that Police crime should be handled by FBI + Federal courts.
I think that at least in theory that is how it is intended to work. But it doesn't really solve the issue, because it's still a strict hierarchy. So the top enforcement organization is hard to force accountability on.
And like you said, states rights and all that, it might be outside the Constitutional powers of the federal government to actually do this. On the bright side, I suppose, getting at least one state to build a model of a working checks & balance system on police is a lot easier than making it happen federally.
There are several of different options. The most obvious is an independent line of authority delegated from the state's legislature or governor. This is where the police get THEIR authority. Other options include close supervision by the courts, private rights of action (i.e., citizen lawsuits), strong FOIA-like transparency rules, etc...
I don't know how I'd make it work exactly, just in principle. I envision a group of people who have enforcement powers over the police, but nobody else. But in order to have enforcement power, they need to be immunized against retaliation from the police. Part of why I think they should have no power at all over anyone other than the police is to reduce the damage potential.
Clearly there are details that a policy expert would have to work out, I'm just a rando on the 'net philosophizing about how we as a society can stop the slide into a police state and preserve a healthy democracy.
Maintaining a liberal democracy seems hard, like it's an unstable creation that can only be sustained through deliberate effort.
In NL, the authority watching the police (Marechaussee, [1]) is organizationally a branch of the military, next to the army, navy and air force subdivisions. I guess it would be similar to having the National Guard be the police watchdog in the US.
The Marechaussee are also involved with other police duties such as fighting organized crime and riot control. NL police doesn't have SWAT teams like in the US, they would be part of the military hierarchy, not the police hierarchy.
NL Does have DSI which is pretty close to what SWAT does as far as I understand it. DSI is a police branch that specializes in things like terrorism and armed standoffs.
They keep trying this, especially in Chicago. But then they have to dismiss everyone after a couple of years because the whole thing is infested with ex-cops and cop family members and they never find a single cop guilty of any infractions.
NYC has exactly this, it's called the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board. I'm not that familiar with it, but I think this is hard to implement right - either it's toothless or makes cops too reluctant to act when they are needed.
After 9/11, the government built a 'secretive' surveillance machine.
Resuming this fundamental issue to a per-basis case normalizes it to the point where people only care given certain circumstances, which is why the government keeps getting await with it.(terrorism, protect the children, police violence, etc.)
So they spent a bunch of money monitoring people saying "you don't get to kill people because you feel like it" instead of a surveillance system for the people doing the murders?
40 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadHowever, according to emails obtained and reviewed as part of our investigation, the operation does appear to be actively ongoing [..] as “OSN 2.0”
This whitewashing of illegal/unethical activities by simply renaming them is so common, it must have a name?
Otherwise how is this catch-22 relevant to the events surrounding George Floyd's murder and the surveillance measures established in response to the protests?
> Law enforcement agencies in Minnesota have been carrying out a secretive, long-running surveillance program targeting civil rights activists and journalists in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Run under a consortium known as Operation Safety Net, the program was set up a year ago, ostensibly to maintain public order as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin went on trial for Floyd’s murder.
Culturally we need to decide what our priorities are: do we sacrifice privacy and freedom for the appearance of safety or do we accept less promises of safety for more freedom and privacy.
You're right, we can't have it both ways.
I agree with you. I would rather the police have a principaled stand for freedom and privacy, and not murder people. Then if something big happens, as GP opined, we as a society need to not crucify them. The police are not and should not be a guarantee that bad things won't happen. We should hold them accountantable for what they do, not hold them responsible for preventing all evils.
I perceive these programs only exist now _because_ protests that have turned into destructive mobs and previously leaders on the fence (in private) now are being persuaded to take the only action they can, secret programs.
Social justice movements are their own worst enemy. We all want change, but when a leaderless group of people make too many people nervous about the randomness of the results they achieve, you get these kinds of results from the government.
There's no objectively "winning" hand here. Governments are always going to try to surveil and subvert protests and protestors. Peaceful or otherwise. Thinking that this is a new phenomenon seems ahistorical.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
With enough political will, anything is possible. Albeit very slowly and painfully.
This is basically because the government involved were willing to anything other than actually prosecute Derek Chauvin. As soon as it got to actual court there was no need for further protests on behalf of George Floyd. It is shameful that it took that much street protest to get the government to do something that it should have done anyway.
If it weren't for Black protesters and BLM "making people nervous" and forcing them to actually pay attention, George Floyd's killers would probably have commendations now, and the racist narratives that defended his murder would be accepted as status quo truth. Progressive change never happens when the powers who govern the status quo are allowed to remain comfortable.
It seems obvious. Which probably means I'm missing something. Or it could just be that the police apparatus is so deeply embedded into the state political system already that it's not possible to put a check on their power. Although some US states have citizen initiatives, so we could force the issue. But then again, many citizens like a strong, unaccountable police force, so that is hardly a guarantee of success.
> many citizens like a strong, unaccountable police force
Indeed.
How would you police these people? They would be like diplomats, only without a home country to keep them in line.
And like you said, states rights and all that, it might be outside the Constitutional powers of the federal government to actually do this. On the bright side, I suppose, getting at least one state to build a model of a working checks & balance system on police is a lot easier than making it happen federally.
Clearly there are details that a policy expert would have to work out, I'm just a rando on the 'net philosophizing about how we as a society can stop the slide into a police state and preserve a healthy democracy.
Maintaining a liberal democracy seems hard, like it's an unstable creation that can only be sustained through deliberate effort.
The Marechaussee are also involved with other police duties such as fighting organized crime and riot control. NL police doesn't have SWAT teams like in the US, they would be part of the military hierarchy, not the police hierarchy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marechaussee
The military. "I feared for my life" just doesn’t have the same ring to them.
Resuming this fundamental issue to a per-basis case normalizes it to the point where people only care given certain circumstances, which is why the government keeps getting await with it.(terrorism, protect the children, police violence, etc.)