On 24 September 1862 Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. That’s an ancient writ that harkens back to Magna Carta and requires the government either to charge you or turn you loose. It means they can’t imprison you indefinitely just because you are their political critic. Therefore Abraham Lincoln had to suspend the writ, and by the war’s end had imprisoned more than 50,000 Northerners. Whoops! That story doesn’t get into the history books too often, now does it?
The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel’s ‘Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis’ on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.
The Nine Principles of Policing
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Looks like those principles are alive and well in America today, doesn’t it?
From The Lizard Farmer:
In this scenario we’re going to assume to perspective of the lead intelligence officer in a built up area with a fairly large population. Austin TX sounds good at this point. Anyway the country has de-stabilized to the point that National Guard units have deployed but martial law hasn’t been declared yet. Over the last few weeks we’ve been faced with a frequent insurgent attacks against logistics columns traveling up and down I-35 in areas around Georgetown and Salado. Additionally this (or other groups) have attacked the infrastructure junctions and in that area as well.
We just happened to get lucky (from our perspective anyway) and kill one of the insurgents and have possession of his body. He had no identification, the serial number on his rifle had been removed, and he had even gone to the trouble to remove his own fingerprints (talk about dedication). Those are some significant hurdles to overcome figuring out who this guy is right? Yeah, but not something we can’t work around…
The rest of this article is an excellent tutorial in practical battlefield information exploitation & is well worth your time to learn from. Click here to continue reading.
I’ve been thinking about Germany in the 1930s as the Nazis built their police and surveillance state. Most Americans aren’t familiar with that history, so they don’t know that many people opposed the Nazis, especially from the Church. Nor do folks realize how careful the Nazis were to push only hard enough to make progress, but not to provoke any pushing back. Then one day, it was too late to try to oppose them. They had built the police state brick by brick, & the trap was shut. Then the war made it easy to brand anyone who opposed the regime a traitor. War offers that cover for totalitarian states.
An even more thorough police state is being built in the US today, with capabilities the Gestapo could only dream of. Many complain, but few oppose at any risk to themselves — I mean principled opposition that is willing to stand lawfully on the constitution and the law in court and even risk jail. I don’t mean morons who think that shooting up a post office will change anything.
Until somebody says, “No, that’s illegal and I won’t go along,” nothing will change. Self-government cannot be preserved by cautious people watching heroes from the sidelines, or blogging or surfing the internet. Only a “belligerent claimant in person” can enforce his rights.
More than 125 years ago Swiss philosopher Henri Amiel said, “If liberty is to be saved, it will not be by doubters, men or science, or materialists; it will be by religious convictions; by the faith of the individuals who believe that God wills men to be free.”
Franklin Sanders, 9 June 2014