Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and Policing of Protest…
Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and Policing of Protest Since 9/11
Shift in the predominant strategy of protest policing
“
negotiated management
”- mutual cooperation with protestors
After failures in 1999- “
strategic incapacitation
”
1970s: “
escalated force
”- repression of protestors
→
since the 9/11 terrorist attacks
: strategic incapacitation displaced escalated force and negotiated management
Strategic incapacitation
Emphasizes
: goals of “scrutinizing society” and isolating/neutralizing potential sources of disruption
Accomplish goals by:
use of surveillance/ information sharing- to asses/ monitor risks
use of pre-emptive arrests/ less-lethal weapons- to selectively disrupt protestors that are/may engage in disruptive tactics
extensive control of space- to isolate/contain actual/potential disruptive protestors
Utilized
: as dominant strategy used by law enforcement to police large protest events that are believed to be at risk of becoming disruptive
Relationship between Democracy and Policing
Core tension of democratic societies
:
relationship between those concerned with
protecting
right to protest & those that advocate for
maintenance
of public order
Viewpoint from those seeking to preserve civil liberties/rights:
A Democratic society should:
→Provides assurance to citizens that they can take their grievances into the public arena/ the streets when regular institutional channels are perceived as unresponsive/unfairly favor elite interests
→ Police agencies- institutions that protect democracy and democratic societies need protection from
Viewpoint from law and order advocates:
→ public protest is morally ambiguous activity
→ activists are illegitimate professional agitators/ threats to democracy
From escalated force to negotiated management
Escalated force:
→ 1960s to address period of major social unrest in America
→ police maintained law and order through disregard for protestors First Amendment rights
→ resorted to mass/unprovoked arrests
→ overwhelming/ indiscriminate use of force
→ early 1970s- “on-the-job troubles” (deaths and injuries) from escalated force strategies gave way to “in-the-job” troubles”
→ “in-the-job troubles” (public criticism and political elite pressures) pushed for new police approaches
Negotiated Management:
→ Emerged in DC
→ Joint effort- US Park police & local Metropolitan police department
→ Encouraged active cooperation between protestors and police through standardized permitting system
Permitting system
→ Institutionalized negotiated management strategy
→ Planning and enacting protest events became more predictable/ routine
→ Requirement of protestors securing permits
→ Mutual concessions between police and protestors- facilitate less disruptive/violent protests
Benefits of Negotiated Management strategies:
→ reduced “on-the-job” and “in-the-job” troubles
→ placed focus of newly professionalized social movements on their issues/organizational maintenance concerns
*“Five dimensions of protest policing”
- continuum of protest policing strategies *
extent police respect protesters First Amendment rights
extent of police tolerance for community disruption
nature of communication with demonstrators
extent/manner of use of arrests to manage protests
extent/manner of use of force to manage protests
→
Police goals
-
revealed
through the degree police respect First Amendment rights & tolerate community disruption
→
Police tactics used to achieve these goals
-
reflected
through nature of communication, and extent/manner of the use or arrests and force to manage protests
Comparison of Negotiated Management and Escalated Force- from policing dimensions:
Negotiated Management
→high priority on protection of First Amendment rights
→Increased tolerance for community disruption
→ accomplished goals: communication with protestors during mobilization period (before event) and during the event
→ during permitting process: police inform protestors of restrictions concerning time, place, and tactics
→ Settle disagreements over restrictions through compromise/ negotiation
→ Police use minimal force for property/ people protection
→ Arrests used only symbolically at request of activists/ as last resort
From negotiated management to strategic incapacitation
Failure of negotiated management- organizational and tactical factors:
Failure of police to find who to negotiate from groups; using leaderless group organizational structures
Inability of police to infiltrate uncooperative groups- close knit nature of groups and local laws prohibiting police surveillance of political groups that had not committed crimes
Inability of Seattle police to prepare for contingencies/ allocate resources to control direct action of protestors
nability for police to predict outcome of group decisions between potentially unruly protest groups and decentralized decision-making procedures
Challenges to Negotiated Management
:
→ Emergence of global justice movement
→ issues concerning organizing structure and tactics of new activists
→ 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle magnified breakdown of effectiveness of negotiated management strategies
1999 WTO protests in Seattle:
→ clash of protestors and police in streets
→ Mayor declared curfew
→ Establishment of “no protest” zone in center city
→ Governor declared state of emergency
→ National Guard called to help police
→ large number of activists using transgressive/disruptive tactics/ organizational styles
→ “on-the-job” troubles- hundreds of arrests, extensive property damage; failure of WTO meetings
→ “in-the-job” troubles- resignation of Seattle police chief, Seattle major lost re-election, criticism of police actions by city council
Seattle events- as a “watershed and ‘the start of a new genre of protests
’”
→ indicated the need for retooling and retraining police across the country
→ national trainings and conferences brought public order experts together
→ gatherings to develop/share neutralizing strategies to undermine actions of transgressive protestors
“New penology” philosophy
→ shift in broad criminal justice system
→ crime as systematic- rather than individualized
→ Stresses need to identify potential victims
→ Emphasizes preemptively protecting victims- conducting risk assessments
After 9/11 Terrorist attacks
:
→ further shift away from negotiated management
→ changing political context
→ focus on security and neutralization of threat
→ rapid development/ adoption of strategic incapacitation- predicting protester action
Characteristics of strategic incapacitation
Goals of police during this era
:
→preserve security
→ neutralize potential security threats
Emphasizes: application of selectively
→ To target those most likely to engage in disruptive activities police distinguish between two types of protestors:
contained and transgressive
Contained protestors
→“good protestors”
→ conventional/ legal tactics
→ negotiate with police
→ self-interested demands
→ generally older
Transgressive protestors
→“bad protestors”
→abstract demands
→ unpredictable/ illegal tactics
→ no police negotiations
→ generally younger
Tolerance for community disruption:
Negotiated management-
allowed for prearranged community disruption- through permitting process
→ “place, time, and manner” of protests and use of symbolic civil disobedience decided during “pre-event” planning between protestors and police
Strategic incapacitation-
police selectively, in advance, determine the locations, times, and behaviors that will be tolerated
→ protestors only given option of following unilaterally and pre-established guidelines instead of pre-negotiated/ mutually agreeable ones-
ex
: February 2003 New York City anti-war rally
Escalated force-
police refuse to allow disruption tolerating- only occasional, most polite forms of public dissent; anything more permits police intervention
First Amendment Rights:
Negotiated management
- highest priority to respect First Amendment for all
Strategic incapacitation
- only protestors who agree in advance to follow police-determined guidelines will be accorded protection of their rights to free speech/ peaceful assembly;
ex:
2003 Miami Free Trade Area of the Americas, 2004 and 2008 Democratic National Conventions
Escalated force-
ignore First Amendment right of all protestors
Communication
Negotiated management-
two way communication allowed police and protesters to communicate under negotiation of unexpected details that came about during the demonstrations; minimized disruption and protested first amendment rights of protesters
Strategic incapacitation-
inform organizers through a one way communication process; police refuse to communicate with transgressive protesters unless they are issuing commands once the protests have already begun;
ex:
first post 9/11 protest in DC
Escalated force
- police refuse to communicate with protesters before and during demonstrations; excessive force was used at times
Extent and manner of arrests
Negotiated management
- police use restraint and use arrests as a last resort in which only those who violate the laws will be arrested
Strategic incapacitation
- arrests are selectively applied; occurs in order to neutralize known or suspected transgressive individuals before crimes occur; evidence is usually not gathered; usually have the intention of dropping all charges after release;
ex
: 2003 FTAA protests in Miami
Extent and manner of using force
Escalated force
-police counted on the use of force that escalated quickly and became very brutal and fatal; used against both violent and non violent protesters rather than arresting people; use with transgressive protesters
Negotiated management
- force was used as a last resort and was only used against those individuals breaking the law; use with contained protesters
Strategic incapacitation
-force is used selectively against transgressive protesters; less lethal weapons are used more frequently in order to incapacitate disruptive protesters and repel others away from the areas police are attempting to protect;
ex
: 2000 World Bank and International Monetary protests in DC
Use of surveillance
Escalated force
-police use surveillance through infiltration or informants who gathered information on individuals or groups and their affiliations; used this information to "disrupt or discredit the activities of groups and individuals deemed a threat to social order"
Negotiated managment
- police didn't rely much on surveillance and used the event permitting system to gather information
Strategic incapacitation
- surveillance is used a great deal to find information on activists and advocacy groups involved in protest events→ monitoring websites, using discussion lists and tracking activists over long distances; police efforts to infiltrate groups; collect information during the protest events which goes against the other two strategies; focuses on finding real time and static information;
real time information
: is used to alert law enforcement to locations of where the disruptive protests are taking place
Information sharing
Negotiated management-
cross agency information sharing on political activism diminished while police stressed that the protection of first amendment rights was important for all groups except the most threatening
Strategic incapacitation-
police rely on information that is shared between federal, state and local agencies; use public relation tactics now; share through weekly FBI intelligence bulletins and during actual protest events; take a "proactive stance" to manage the flow of information to the media when dealing with protests →public information officers control the flow of information released to the public & police manage media portrayal of events by embedding reporters in front line police units
Escalated force-
sharing is limited due to the decentralized nature of the criminal justice system
Controlling space
Negotiated management-
police use barriers in order to guide protesters to the areas they agreed would be off limits → allowed protesters tho be within the earshot of the targeted gathering
Strategic incapacitation-
police decide in advance where demonstrations will occur and divide the public and private spaces into three zones →
1. hard zones:
areas where targets of protest gather and are off limits to everyone else who don't have proper clearance ;
2. free speech zones:
areas where police decide in advance to allow legal protest to occur ;
3. soft zones:
public spaces adjacent to hard zones where first amendments are curtailed, police and protesters clash
Escalated force-
police use barricades and police lines to consolidate protesters into one specific place to ensure that mass arrests can occur or punishment with force can occur
Conclusion
Police utilize arrests, less lethal weapons and control of space tactics in order to neutralize disruptive protesters → strive to reduce the risk on and in the job troubles that police encounter
Future research must focus on the normalization and dissemination of strategic incapacitation and the impact and consequences of this strategy on democratic societies in order to understand the social control of disagreement on post 9/11 America
Police rely more on strategic incapacitation specifically surveillance and information sharing tactics with the overall goal of minimizing the risk by determining and neutralizing potential threats
Strategic incapacitation is employed by police to successfully police US protests when authorities anticipate organized protesters will act disruptively