Thursday, February 16, 2012

Rescued from Appleton's Memory Hole -- Becky Akers' "Police: An Army By Any Other Name"





 







 As a public service, I am reproducing below the splendid essay by Becky Akers entitled "Police: An Army By Any Other Name." That essay was published by The New American on February 15 and lasted nearly a day before the editorial collective purged it from the website.

We've previously examined several other examples of Orwellian "rectification" on the part of the crepuscular authoritarians running the JBS; indeed, archiving specimens of that kind is one of the primary purposes of this site. I'm tempted to say that this is done in the hope of keeping JBS management honest, but I recognize that this would avail nothing, given that the people we're discussing are incurably aversive to honesty.

This compelling essay is irrefutable. It is also incompatible with Appleton's revived "Support Your Local Police" campaign, which is founded on the idea that local police are to be sustained and defended against criticism of any kind, irrespective of the abuses they commit against the public.


Here is the relevant directive from the SYLP "Startup Manual":



"The local police are not your enemy. Your committee is not here to attack them, blame them for violating the Constitution or your civil liberties because they are enforcing a measure of the Patriot Act or conducting a joint Federal and State anti-terror drill. Those are federal issues, which the local police in some cases may have already have little to no say if they are to continue receiving their additional Homeland Security funds, new equipment and weaponry.... We urge all responsible citizens in this community to work with us to ...[s]upport our local police in the performance of their duties [and] oppose all harassment or interference with law enforcement personnel as they carry out their assigned tasks.... [We must accept] our responsibilities to our local police, to defend them against unjust attacks, make them proud and secure in their vital profession, and to offer them our support in word and deed wherever possible." (Emphasis added.)


What readers looking for the Akers piece saw on February 16.


For the decrepit commissars running the JBS, when fact and principle collide with Upper Management's party line, it is the latter that must prevail. So Becky Akers' article was scrubbed from TNA's website. 

The last time something like this happened was in the Summer of 2006, when I published a piece explaining how the immigration issue was being used to expand the police state. That essay was taken down within a few hours, and Alan Scholl called me to threaten my job -- not because anything I had written was untrue (he made it clear that the truth was "not the issue"), but because it conflicted with the "corporate decision" to "ride the wave" of the immigration issue, at whatever cost to the truth. 

Becky Akers brilliantly documents where the "wave" Alan referred to has taken our country. Appleton's decision to consign that essay to the Memory Hole demonstrates, beyond serious dispute, that the poseurs running the JBS are craven, weak-bladdered collaborators.


 

Written by Becky Akers   -   New American
Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:33

 
States and localities across the country are wielding the Tenth Amendment against the heinous NDAA of 2012, promising to nullify its anti-constitutional threat of “indefinitely detaining” us. For example, “commissioners” in Kansas’ Cherokee County “may vote on a resolution condemning sectionsof the NDAA as a violation of several provisions in the U.S. Constitution … The proposed resolution notes that the military policing of citizens ‘is repugnant to a free society.’”Actually, policing is repugnant to a free society. Exactly who carries out such tyranny, whether “police forces” or an army, is largely a matter of semantics. But in dumbed-down America, propaganda and a deft change in terminology often fool the sheeple.Police are nothing less than soldiers a country’s rulers turn loose on its taxpayers. Such troops have seldom been armed as heavily as those sent against external enemies, but America’s increasingly “militarized” cops flout that rule of thumb. And that brings us full circle, because prior to the nineteenth century, regular armies “policed” cities.One fabled incident from America’s colonial history illustrates this. In 1770, the British Army’s policing of a town in Massachusetts culminated in the Boston Massacre.

 
The Army’s 19 months of invasion — sorry, policing there before the Massacre had been typical. Nor was Boston the only city so cursed. At home in England, riots regularly rocked eighteenth-century London. And the government just as regularly sicced its enforcers on the dissidents. Any army’s raison d’etre is to impose rulers’ whims on those refusing to obey. It mattered not whether the rebels were French cavalry, Prussian cannoneers or beleaguered British citizens whose taxes financed the infantry shooting at them.

States and localities across the country are wielding the Tenth Amendment against the heinous NDAA of 2012, promising to nullify its anti-constitutional threat of “indefinitely detaining” us. For example, “commissioners” in Kansas’ Cherokee County “may vote on a resolution condemning sectionsof the NDAA as a violation of several provisions in the U.S. Constitution … The proposed resolution notes that the military policing of citizens ‘is repugnant to a free society.’”Actually, policingis repugnant to a free society. Exactly who carries out such tyranny, whether “police forces” or an army, is largely a matter of semantics. But in dumbed-down America, propaganda and a deft change in terminology often fool the sheeple.Police are nothing less than soldiers a country’s rulers turn loose on its taxpayers. Such troops have seldom been armed as heavily as those sent against external enemies, but America’s increasingly “militarized” cops flout that rule of thumb. And that brings us full circle, because prior to the nineteenth century, regular armies “policed” cities.One fabled incident from America’s colonial history illustrates this. In 1770, the British Army’s policing of a town in Massachusetts culminated in the Boston Massacre.

The Army’s 19 months of invasion — sorry, policing there before the Massacre had been typical. Nor was Boston the only city so cursed. At home in England, riots regularly rocked eighteenth-century London. And the government just as regularly sicced its enforcers on the dissidents. Any army’s raison d’etre is to impose rulers’ whims on those refusing to obey. It mattered not whether the rebels were French cavalry, Prussian cannoneers or beleaguered British citizens whose taxes financed the infantry shooting at them.

Or American colonists becoming uppity and tiresome in their protests. Bostonians had been among the most vocal in their opposition to such incipient dictatorship as the Stamp Act of 1765. They also objected to paying customs duties — vehemently. In fact, they had driven the vermin that stole this money for the king out of their city.

Ann Hulton’s brother was among the tax-collectors who fled; she wrote, “Every officer of the Crown that does his duty is become obnoxious & they must either fly or be sacrificed. … These Sons of Violence after attacking Houses, breaking Windows, beating, Stoning & bruizing several gentlemen belong’g to the Customs, the Collector mortally & burning his boat.”


And so the government sent troops to help Customs rob the colonists. That remains cops’ chief function today. They ticket drivers while arresting and delivering other victims to the State so it can fine them or feed them to the prison-industrial complex — all while burbling that this somehow “protects” us.

Adamantly refuting that claim are the corpses littering cops’ wake. Though the British Army in Boston slaughtered only 5 people in the “Massacre,” police kill an average of about 200 people every year — and that counts only the ones who expire “in custody,” not the dozens more who die as innocent bystanders or because police bust down the wrong door, and the householder, defending himself from what he assumes is a burglary, succumbs to a hail of “official” bullets.

Adding insult to fatal injury, Our Rulers dub these unfortunates “Justifiable Homicides.” Though we are the geese laying Leviathan’s golden eggs, the beast does not mourn our deaths. Indeed, the U.S. Department of [In]Justice decrees that "the use of deadly force against a police officer is almost never justified, while the use of deadly force by police often is... [K]illings by police are referred to as ‘justifiable homicides,’ and the persons that police kill are referred to as ‘felons.’ " Yep, I’m dizzy, too, from such risibly circular “reasoning.”

How did we arrive at such a sorry and despotic pass? One of the primary causes is the State’s cynical domestication of its armed forces. Like Cherokee County’s commissioners, most Americans still fear an army’s patrolling them. But they drop their wariness when Leviathan renames that army “police department.” Yet if we restrict the military to mere arrests as we do cops, what substantive difference is there?