[ SECRET POST #5184 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5184 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #742.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

It suggests there are reasonable historical grounds for the idea that there is a normative distinction between the ways in which the police and the military exercise state violence.
Which is irrelevant to whether that's actually a good point or not, so it's not a good defense about whether it's a good point.

The idea of a distinction between police and military is a really common one in theory, it's embedded in the law, and it's foundational to a lot of things about the organization of policing
I wouldn't say that actually, it was in fact first indistinguishable from military responsibility. In the same laws in fact. I'll grant you that when you get to 1812, Peel thought policing should be the line before military interference or jail, but that's all the distinction the Peelian principles give and suggest mostly that he viewed policing on a continuity of state interference as the least interfering, not necessarily strictly distinct from military purpose.

Police are organized in different institutional ways than the military; they are subject to civil law and civil control in different ways than soldiers
This is true of every institution of the state (including foreign affairs otherwise) and ultimately, of them all, the police operate the closest to the military in both function, form, and structure and furthest from every other institution in their subjectness to civil law and civil control, except for covert institutions which operate like nothing else, and institutions which have their own police. The difference seems to be primarily one of field, and I don't countenance that as an aspect that confers the distinction Vimes is making. But, frankly, what distinctions do you think are significant? I can certainly be over-looking something.

the purpose and function of policing is very different from the purpose and function of military force.
I don't actually think so at all. They both maintain state interests of stability and authority against those who they believe willingly oppose it. That they don't believe civilians will oppose it in the same ways as combatants doesn't change that imo.

Police are a job that you leave at the end of the day
You can leave at the end of the day, I think you mean. You also can have the authority to use it regardless of duty status.

whereas military service requires a term of service and can punish you in extremely severe ways for desertion.
That's not a inherent aspect of all militaries, but I'll say I agree with this distinction for the most part. I still think that's an aspect of target and not purpose.

And police are subject to civil law and oversight in a much more direct way than the military is.
Disagree to an extent, in that civil oversight of police is dependent on their status at the time, which is exactly the way most militaries operate, except their status isn't, as we've said, up for debate. There's some difference when police are said to act outside scope, but getting there....is up to the state. Moreover, outside the civil there's usually an internal system which is not civil oversight, and influences whether there is civil oversight a LOT. This is objectively better (aka more civil oversight) in the Europe, but still.

There are a lot of ways in which the military is set apart from ordinary civilian life which are absolutely not mirrored by policing.
When active or including when not active? I'd like to see more of what you mean. Are you including forces which are only called up?

And ultimately, it's really important and central to the idea of police as a distinct institution that police should treat their job as being fundamentally different from the job of an occupying army.
I understand the issue of cooperative public assent, but "the public" as a concept does not act like "the state" as a concept, and that papers over its purpose to act in the state interests of stability. In other words, I could believe your distinction if police were truly community led, but as long as they're not, they cannot help but be distinct force from the community. I don't know that you can prevent the attitude of occupation from that perspective.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I don't actually think so at all. They both maintain state interests of stability and authority against those who they believe willingly oppose it.

That there are some ways in which police and military are similar does not mean that they are identical! They are similar in some ways, and different in other ways. In particular, the orientation towards the subjects should be different, at least in principle: policing normatively should assume that citizens are to be protected; the military often assumes that people are enemies.

civil oversight of police is dependent on their status at the time, which is exactly the way most militaries operate, except their status isn't, as we've said, up for debate. There's some difference when police are said to act outside scope, but getting there....is up to the state

Sure. But the administration is still basically different - the military has an entirely military chain of command which is subject to civilian control at the very top, national levels; the police (usually) operate on, and are subject to civilian control at, local levels.

I understand the issue of cooperative public assent, but "the public" as a concept does not act like "the state" as a concept, and that papers over its purpose to act in the state interests of stability. In other words, I could believe your distinction if police were truly community led, but as long as they're not, they cannot help but be distinct force from the community. I don't know that you can prevent the attitude of occupation from that perspective.

So, I think this is kind of outside the scope of the argument, because what it basically comes down to is: can the state as an institution actually be subject to democratic popular control in a meaningful way, or is the state necessarily a tool of coercion and control over people? And there are good arguments on both sides - I think the anarchists make strong points!

And that's really central to the whole argument. Because I think that's a large part of the answer to how you prevent the attitude of occupation: you build political systems that are capable of exercising effective oversight and control. And there are other things you can do too to really emphasize the lack of separation from the populace - which is what the Pratchett quote is about in the first place.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

policing normatively should assume that citizens are to be protected; the military often assumes that people are enemies.
It's fairly clear I'm saying the difference doesn't make a clear distinction in purpose that justifies Vimes's disgust. Anyway, protection as a norm needs an adversary. Who do police think this adversary is if not people. Furthermore, the military often assumes that people need to be protected. It is part of their function (I would argue fundamentally the same way you would about the police).

the police (usually) operate on, and are subject to civilian control at, local levels.
I'd say police control, which is the relevant chain here, isn't quite civilian for the same reason I'm saying the police aren't civilian

you build political systems that are capable of exercising effective oversight and control. And there are other things you can do too to really emphasize the lack of separation from the populace - which is what the Pratchett quote is about in the first place
Yes and what I'm saying is oversight does not affect the power differential between police as an institution and public, nor does Vimes' quote talk about any of the thing you believe might emphasize lack of separation, and thus that quote is disingenuous as a philosophy at best, and doesn't need a ton of praise and needs a bit more criticism.