New York Times discusses the challenges of cops with a conscience and a voice

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Pete

I don’t know if it’s just my imagination, but the New York Times seems to really be stepping up recently. The latest is an excellent article: Police Officers Find That Dissent on Drug Laws May Come With a Price

The article discusses the cases of several cops who have been disciplined or fired for expressing their sympathy with legalization, and it mentions Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at length.

Nice.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to New York Times discusses the challenges of cops with a conscience and a voice

  2. kaptinemo says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:07 am

    I’ve often overheard cops complaining that they “have less rights than ‘civilians’ do”.

    (Tell that to the victims of wrong-house drug raids, particularly when such raids results in the unwarranted deaths of those who live there; the cops usually get nothing but soft little pat-pats on the wrist, not even a slap.)

    But in these examples, it’s a clear-cut a case of cops being penalized for daring to make use of their 1st Amendment rights.

    Real dumb move on the part of their supervisors. For it shows how politicized LE has become. And that can backfire in all sorts of ways.

    • Francis says:
      December 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      Wait so civilians have the right to bust down their neighbors’ doors, hold them at gunpoint, shoot their dogs, ransack their homes, and steal their stuff? And then on top of that, they have the right to commit EVEN MORE atrocities? What are some examples? Prima nocta perhaps?

      • darkcycle says:
        December 5, 2011 at 7:40 pm

        Great!…hardly ever see reference to the “right of first night”. That was probably the most offensive custom of British Royalty. You get a bonus obscure reference point for that, Francis!

  3. claygooding says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:24 am

    The war on some drugs is deeply entrenched in our entire society,,the ones not scared into the prohibition with propaganda are bought into it with bounty money.

    This is pressure being brought from the top down though,and just because a police officer may not be able to agree with us in public,,they can still vote on legalization.

  4. divadab says:
    December 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    This apparent over-reaction by the feds in punishing a “thought crime” is very revealing – they know that their policy is stupid and unreasonable and diminishes respect for government – so they necessarily over-enforce compliance with their non-sensical authoritarian anti-Constitutional pogrom against a plant’s ideology.

    And they also know that only a mutiny from within the ranks will ultimately end the war. Like Vietnam.

  5. darkcycle says:
    December 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Divadab, these are primarily a strong message to the rank and file. The PTB, from the desk Sargeant on up the chain fear losing control, and they react quickly to any visible signs of dissent in the ranks.
    In the article, which the times will not let me access a second time w/o signing in, the reason given for the termination of one of the aggrieved parties was that their uperiors did not believe he could follow orders if he had an opinion counter to policy.

    • darkcycle says:
      December 5, 2011 at 12:50 pm

      In other words ” If we want you to have an opinion, we’ll issue you one.”

    • thelbert says:
      December 5, 2011 at 2:12 pm

      my uperiors are downpressin’ me. down with uperiors. let me ask the assembled couch: is attempting to beat a urinalysis dishonest or unethical? i did it once and don’t feel guilty in the least. thoreaux or somebody said you have a duty break an unjust law.

      • darkcycle says:
        December 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm

        Thelbert, it is unethical to require a urine purity test as a condition of employment. It is dishonest to require that testing of rank and file employees and not their management as well (as is almost always the case). If it is dishonest or unethical to cheat on one, it is just as dishonest and unethical to require it in the first place.
        While two wrongs don’t make a right, a paycheck in the hand is worth two in the bush. I say, Joke ’em if they can’t take f**k.

  6. Servetus says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. Tribal moral relativism, the idea that the state can do no wrong, is echoed by Glenn Greenwald’s favorite George Orwell quote, which fits well with the prohibition machine’s efforts to silence law enforcement personnel regarding the drug war:

    “All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”—George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, May 1945.

Comments are closed.