CMRJ620 APUS Divided Loyalty In American Law Enforcement Paper Discussion Question: Cynthia Brown (2011) states that a divided loyalty exists post 9/11 for

CMRJ620 APUS Divided Loyalty In American Law Enforcement Paper Discussion Question: Cynthia Brown (2011) states that a divided loyalty exists post 9/11 for American law enforcement. Analyze and assess her argument. Is she right or wrong? Why? Provide reference to scholarly sources to support your statements.Your initial post should be at least 500 words.Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria. DIVIDED LOYALTIES: ETHICAL CHALLENGES FOR AMERICA’S LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN POST 9/11 AMERICA
Cynthia A. Brown, J.D., Ph.D.*
The martial trend within American police agencies may have begun
nearly twenty years prior to the events of 9/11, but the terrorist attacks and
a decade of military conflict since bear significant responsibility for the
widespread, integrated militarization of our nation’s law enforcement. Military appearance, tactics, operations, weaponry and culture, including the
rise arid normalization of police paramilitary units, are all components of
the country’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts and contributors to what
may be viewed as an identity crisis among police officers. The crisis of identity arises when officers become torn between their sworn duty to protect
and serve the community consistent with the tenets of the U.S. Constitution,
on the one hand, and the national call to arms in the “war on terror” on the
other. The tension experienced by many arises when officers must decide
which interest receives their loyalty and which standard guides their choice
of decision. Unfortunately, the increased militarization of America’s civilian police force is impinging upon the professional ethics of its officers.
I. INTRODUCTION
IL MILITARIZING AMERICA
652
653
A. The Evolution of America’s Militarization
B. The Infusion of Militarization Across Society
C. Just War Theory on the Streets of America
in. BLURRING THE LINES OF POLICE DUTY
A. The Traditional Role of American Police
B. The Revised Role of American Police after 9/11
IV. PAYING THE PRICE FOR DIVIDED LOYALTIES
V.
CONCLUSION
654
657
661
665
665
669
674
675
© Copyright 2011, Cynthia A. Brown. Dr. Brown is an Assistant Professor of Legal
Studies in the Department of Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida in Orlando,
Florida. She wishes to thank Neal E. Trautman, Executive Director of the National Institute
of Ethics.
651
652
CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L.
[Vol. 43:651
I. INTRODUCTION
From inception, organized civilian police forces have been distinguishable from the military—a design of deliberate distinction. Because
early opponents feared civilian police forces would, in fact, be an extension
of standing armies acting as secret spies, limiting individual freedoms and
perpetuating governmental abuses, the introduction of an organized crime
prevention body enabled with govemment authorized coercive power was
quite confroversial. Compared to increased crime, though, new police forces
were eventually perceived as the lesser evil, and with reduced resistance, the
creation of civilian police agencies quickly spread across America. Recently, the progression of the paramilitary character of the nation’s civilian law
enforcement and, conversely, the increasing law enforcement character of
the military forces abroad,’ have provoked new heights of criticism within
professional, academic and secular circles.
A nascent realization is that America’s law enforcement today may
be confirming, in some respects, many of the original concems of those
opposing civilian police forces. Nearly two centuries since they were first
voiced, issues like repressive criminal laws, abuse of governmental authority, and infringement on citizens’ rights are sparking debate and being revisited. The blurring of the constitutional and statutory principles that established a bright line dichotomous model separating armed military forces
from domestic civilian police is engendering a bevy of critical appraisal, not
the least of which concems law enforcement’s digression from its professional code of ethics.
The author hypothesizes that a significant expansion of militarization in America, particularly including normalizing the use of military-style
tactics in mainstream police flinctions, undergirded by the theory of just
war, is largely responsible for increases in unethical decision-making by
‘ See Rachel Bronson, When Soldiers Become Cops, 81 FOREIGN AFF. 122, 122 (2002)
(“Because the United States has no paramilitary units and only poorly organized civilian
policing tools, elite combat forces have ended up filling the void.”). Increasingly, American
combat forces are called upon to handle civil strife in foreign countries where we have a
military presence, mining soldiers in policing operations. The U.S. military, unfortunately, is
poor-equipped to fulfill the responsibility of establishing post-confiict security in precarious
political environments, often deemed peacekeeping and policing missions. Id. at 124-126.
“On the war’s intemational front, military interventions increasingly take the form of peacekeeping police actions; while on the home front, the military are increasingly engaged or
prepared for intemal intervention and policing is progressively militarized [sic].” Jude
McCulloch, Blue Armies, Khaki Police and the Cavalry on the New American Frontier:
Critical Criminology for the 21st Century, 12 CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY 309, 310 (2004). A
thorough analysis of soldiers’ post-conflicting policing roles is outside the scope of this
article.
2011]
ETHICAL CHALLENGES
653
police officers.^ Deluged by martial rhetoric, fear, and constant threat of
harm, many law enforcement officers find themselves conflicted when confronted by choices between professional ethics and their supposed obligations to wage “war” on any number of valid concerns—crime, drugs, terrorism. This article considers what impact enlarged militarization and the “just
war” tradition may be having on those swom^ to protect and serve. Part II of
the article proceeds with an overview of the evolution and eventual expansion of militarization within the United States and an introduction of just
war theory. Part III examines both the traditional role of American law enforcement and the modem adaptations of the nation’s civilian police force,
particularly since September 11, 2001. Finally, the article concludes with
thoughts about how the militarization of America—^bolstered by the traditional just war principles—impinges on the professional ethics of law enforcement officers and may be responsible for an identity crisis among police.
11. MILITARIZING AMERICA
Considering the concept of militarization, it is probably advisable to
first briefly introduce the broader notion of militarism. Militarism, originally popularized in the 1860s, describes “the adoption of war and military
behaviors as ideals: the glorification of war and military power as ends
themselves, as dominant or even defining values in a society in which the
military establishment has disproportionate social and political influence
^ Kevin Johnson, Police Brutality Cases up 25%; Union Worried over Dip in Ifiring
Standards; Shortages may lead to “Scrimping” on Training, USA TODAY, Dec. 18, 2007, at
lA. Kevin Johnson, a USA Today journalist, reports on an analysis of federal law enforcement prosecutions compiled by Transactional Records Access Cleadnghouse at Syracuse
University (TRAC) report. Charges of excessive use of force and other tactics that violate
civil dghts have increased at least twenty-five percent since 2001. Id.
‘ A typical example of a law enforcement officer’s oath of office is:
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge
my integdty, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the Constitution
my community and the agency I serve.
See International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], Presentation of the Oath of Honor,
IACP, http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/
Ethics/WhatistheLawEnforcementOathofHonor/PresentingtheOathofHonor/tabid/160/Defaul
taspx (2011).
654
CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L.
[Vol. 43:651
relative to other elites or institutions.”^ Speier defines militarism as existing
“when the distribution of power and esteem assumes the form of centralization of control, an aftendant state monopoly of raising, controlling and
equipping armies, and a universality of military mores.”^ Militarization, on
the other hand, occurs as a society adopts the tenets of militarism. Military
historian Richard Khon suggests militarization is “the degree to which a
society’s institutions, policies, behaviors, thought, and values are devoted to
military power and shaped by war.”* Militarization is rooted in the notion
that there may exist in a culture various “customs, interests, prestige, actions, and thought associated with armies and wars”^ but it all transcends
true military purposes. The transcendence beyond the martial requirements
makes these customs, interests, prestige, actions and thought irrelevant, unnecessary, and, at times, even dysfunctional to war making.^
A.
The Evolution of America’s Militarization
Until the first of the two World Wars, the ideals of war and peace
were highly differentiated in the American experience. Any militarization
was but a brief interruption during which citizens took up arms as the nation
fortified for baftle. As soon as the crisis passed, liftle time was wasted before civilians returned to their normal pursuits, and the government disbanded its defensive force, designed as a temporary creation that expired
with the crisis.’
The First World War, or the Great War, would nurture an American
culture in the 1920s and 1930s profoundly influenced by thoughts of war
and military intervention.'” Notwithstanding the nation’s aftentions on war,
the United States had not yet moved toward militarization. That would
Richard H. Kohn, The Danger of Militarization in an Endless “War” on Terrorism, 73
THE JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY 177,182 (2009).
‘
HANS SPEIER, SOCIAL ORDER AND THE RISKS OF WAR: PAPERS IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY
230(1952).
Kohn, supra note 4, at 182. Professor Kohn derives his defmition for militarization from
descriptions previously provided by German historian Michael Geyer and Michael Sherry.
Geyer Submits that militarization is “the contradictory intense social process in which civil
society organizes itself for the production of violence.” Michael Geyer, The Militarization of
Europe, 1914-1945, in THE MILITARIZATION OF THE WESTERN WORLD 79 (John R. Gillis ed.,
1989). Sherry, on the other hand, suggests a broader meaning for militarization offering that
it is “the process by which war and national security became consuming anxieties and provided the memories, models and metaphors that shaped broad areas of national life.”
MICHAEL S. SHERRY, IN THE SHADOW OF WAR: THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE 1930S XI
(1995).
^
ALFRED VAGTS, A HISTORY OF MILITARISM: CÍVILIAN AND MILITARY 13 ( 1959).
* See id.
‘ Kohn, supra note 4, at 184.
‘” See íí/. at 185.
2011]
ETHICAL CHALLENGES
655
come as the conflict ended. World War I experienced renewed life through
political issues further buoyed by the emerging conflict that culminated in
another World War. The armed forces sought assistance from American
businesses to mobilize industry and the national economy for the ensuing
mass conflict. Both the governmental defense agencies and private enterprise worked to advance technologies and integrate improvements in America’s military capabilities to ensure the nation’s defense.” World War I
brought American government and business together in a partnership that
gave rise to a military power that would become the “Arsenal of Democracy” in World War II. Because of this. World War I proved to be America’s
turning point toward militarization, taking “a major and seemingly irrevocable step in the direction of becoming a warfare or national security state.”‘^
In these ways and others, war and military gradually became a central paradigm for the country,'” but it was not until the Cold War that the nation’s
expansive military establishment evolved into both a regular and prominent
feature of American life.
Threats of communist expansion, at a minimum, and nuclear assault,’^ at worst, characterized the Cold War and motivated efforts to expand the nation’s conventional forces and upgrade her military readiness.’*
Much attention was centered on establishing a democratic presence along
”
See PAUL A. C. KOISTINEN, PLANNING WAR, PURSUING PEACE: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY
OF AMERICAN WARFARE, 1920-1939 xiv (1998).
‘^ Kohn, supra note 4, at 184.
”
KOISTINEN, supra note 11, at 298; see also, PAUL L MURPHY, WORLD WAR I AND THE
ORIGIN OF CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE UNITED STATES (1979); NEIL A. WYNN, FROM
PROGRESSIVEM TO PROSPERITY: WORLD WAR I AND AMERICAN SOCIETY (1986).
‘”‘ William E. Leuchtenburg, The New Deal and the Analog of War, in CHANGE AND
CONTINUITY IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA 81 (John Braemen, Robert H Bremner, &
Everett Walters eds., 1964).
‘^ See Catherine Lutz, Making War at Home in the United States: Militarization and the
Current Crisis, 104 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 723,727 (2002).
U.S.-Soviet enmity became associated with a new mode of warfare. Termed “nuclearism,” it was initiated in 1945 with the bombing of the U.S. westem desert and
then Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While technocentrism suggests that the new weapon
and its massive destructive power were key to the transformation that began that
year, what changed, more importantly, was the perception of danger among the
people purportedly protected by nuclear weapons and the new social relations that
emerged because of these weapons’ manufacture . . . . This mode of warfare also
spawned expanded codes of secrecy to protect the technical knowledge involved in
weapons development… [and] also fundamentally, deformed norms of democratic
citizenship akeady under pressure from consumerist notions of self and eroded civil liberties.
Id
‘ ^ Kohn, supra note 4, at 187.
656
CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L.
[Vol. 43:651
the communist periphery.’^ This was accomplished, in part, by constructing
foreign bases in sfrategic locales.’^ Additionally, diplomacy efforts concentrated on securing the ancillary programs and services necessary to reinforce
America’s global presence and advance American military power worldwide.”
At home, military services worked in tandem both with civilian
groups and leading political figures to establish programs aimed at indocfrinating Americans in citizenship and national (including military) values “to
sfrengthen the national character and . . . to fransform society along lines
favorable to a martial mind-set.”^” In less than a decade following World
War II, the United States was a nation that had mobilized, at least psychologically, for military confiict.^’
From the late 1940s through the 1980s, the need to combat the
communist threat filled American life and fueled American politics. “[T]he
needs of the military establishment and the possibility of war pervaded the
economy and American society more deeply, and for a more extended period of time, than ever before, with the exception of those brief periods
when the nation engaged in a shooting war.”^^
Fears of internal subversion roiled the 1940s; antinuclear protests and antiwar demonstrations recurred in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. For
the first time on a continuing basis, military preparedness and spending,
weapons systems, and the shape and character of the military establishment periodically intruded into partisan politics and may have decided
some elections. All sorts of domestic needs, from superhighways to the
reform of education and even racial integration were justified by the overwhelming need to combat the communist menace . . . . Many aspects of
life in the United States came to be measured against the ability of Americans to compete with communism: the divorce rate, race relations, worker
” Id
” Id
” Id
‘”
LORI LYN BOGLE, THE PENTAGON’S BATTLE FOR THE AMERICAN MIND: THE EARLY COLD
WAR 16 (2004).
Kohn, supra note 4, at 190. The President of the American Historical Association in
1949, argued “We must clearly assume a military attitude if we want to survive . . . Total
war, whether it be hot or cold, enlist everyone and calls upon everyone to assume his part.. .
Confronted by such alternatives as Mussolini and Hitler and last of all Stalin have imposed,
we must clearly assume a militant attitude if we are to survive . . . . This sounds like the
advocacy of one form of social control as against another. In short, it is. But I see no alternative in a divided world. Probably in any planned world we can never be altogether free
agents, even with our tongue and pen. The important thing is that we shall accept and endorse such controls as are essential for the preservation of our way of life.” Conyers Read,
The Social Responsibilities of the Historian, available at http://www.historians.org/info/
AHA_History/cread.htm (last visited Apr. 14, 2011), cited in Kohn, supra note 4, at 190.
” Kohn, supra note 4, at 188.
2011]
ETHICAL CHALLENGES
657
productivity, the moral fiber of American youth, even the viability of the
American family itself.^’
The collapse of the Soviet Union, marking with it the end of the
Cold War, would have seemingly eliminated America’s need to prepare for
war and its corresponding defense expenditures devoted to building and
maintaining the military. That was not the case. Rather, there was an apparent national agreement that the United States should take necessary steps to
remain the world’s dominant military power, a global superpower.^” Large
numbers of veterans groups, which were formed after both World Wars, the
Korean confiict, and the Vietnam War, pressed for massive defense expenditures.^’ Industrial and business enterprises promoted military preparedness.^^ And, the Pentagon, of course, continually called for amplified defense prowess.^^
By the late 1990s, America’s military had grovra and the nation’s
defense budget had swollen to three times the percentage of the gross domestic product, a point that exceeded any other peacetime period in the
country’s history.^* Unknowingly, it would serve as a harbinger for what
would come. After September 11, 2001, the nation’s resolve for military
domination grew even more resolute. The terrorist aftacks on home soil
brought an intensification of America’s militarization that now dominates
not only foreign relations but also all aspects of the country’s domestic life.
5.
The Infusion of Militarization Across Society
Over the last eighty years, the United States has experienced decades of depression,’ the Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean confiict, the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and intemational pri” Id. at 190-91 (citations omitted).
^” The United States Commission on National Security/21’*’ Century, also known as the
Hartman-Rudman Commission, completed the most thorough review of American national
security in a generation and concluded the United States’ budget in the late 1990s included
military and defense expenditures that exceeded those of the next ten countries combined.
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY/21^^ CENTURY, NEW WORLD COMING:
AMERICAN SECURITY IN THE 2 1 ” CENTURY 3 (1999). The next ten countries included Great
Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Id. The Commission also reported that the “United States will remain the principal
military power in the world . . . both absolutely and relatively stronger than any other state or
combination of states.” Id.
^’
”
Kohn, supra note 4, at 187.
Id
”
ADAM YARMOLINSKY, THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT: ITS IMPACTS ON AMERICAN
SOCIETY 13-15 (Harper & Row 1971).
^* Eliot A. Cohen, Defending America in the Twenty-first Century, 79 FOREIGN AFFAIRS
40-56 (2000).
658
CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L.
[Vol. 43:651
macy. With each event came another degree of militarization expanding
beyond anything experienced before in American history. This is no less
true following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Most certainly, the
“war on terror” has proved to be an unprecedented contributor to America’s
militarizati…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment