NYPD

“I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said.

I’m not entirely sure what he means by having his own “State Department.” The city’s independent nonprofit tourism agency, maybe? But he didn’t mention that his army also comes with its own international (and questionably legal) intelligence-gathering apparatus, just like the CIA and FBI, except without any sort of oversight, congressional or otherwise.

Bloomberg, of course, is being a touch ironic, but he’s also not wrong. The NYPD has a 1,000-man army within its increasingly militarized ranks. It has tanks, combat rifles, anti-aircraft weaponry, non-lethal anti-terror sound cannons, and, supposedly, a submarine. And it’s all under the command of one guy, Ray Kelly, who answers solely to one other guy: Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg’s conception of the NYPD as “his army” explains a lot. Like why he thought it’d be OK to deploy them to Bermuda to help police his weekend home. (That plan was scuttled … once it leaked to the press.) Or why he thought it appropriate to use the NYPD to prevent demonstrators from … drumming on his block, one night.

If you want a sense of precisely how distanced from accountability NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly is, his response to being interrupted by a protester while addressing a Columbia class is illuminating. Faced with footage of police brutality, Kelly grinned and joked around.

A few minutes later, another student asked Kelly why most people who are arrested are incarcerated for “drug crimes.” Dinkins said he didn’t understand the question, and things got confrontational between the student, Kelly, and Dinkins pretty quickly. The student’s SIPA colleagues were not pleased—a few students and a TA asked if she was registered for the class. “No,” she said, “but I do have a question.”

Commissioner Kelly, still grinning, leaned over to another guest for today’s class, New York District Attorney Cy Vance, and loudly whispered, “Says something about the security of this school, doesn’t it?”

(Yes, that’s former Mayor David Dinkins, who himself once faced a revolt of entitled police officers chafing at the prospect of being held accountable for law-breaking and corruption.)

In case Kelly is unfamiliar with the easily available data regarding what his massive army actually does most days, the NYPD makes more arrests for possession of marijuana than for any other crime. Marijuana possession is used as a pretext to sweep up and arrest tens of thousands of black men every year. And the commissioner pretends he’s totally unaware of that fact, even as his department defends the practice as necessary for our safety.

Powerful (and popular) commissioner Kelly has basically escaped every NYPD scandal with his reputation unsullied. Mayor Bloomberg is generally treated by most of the local press as though the fact that he surely means well excuses all manner of illegal activities, lax oversight, and contempt for civil liberties and the law.

Harry Siegel, in a good recent piece on how the recent scandals of the NYPD are actually generating some negative ink for once, actually undersells the recent revelations:

The overly-aggressive response to the Wall Street “occupation”—which began with arresting dozens on the Brooklyn Bridge, proceeded to involve the pepper spraying of protesters, and concluded with a forced media blackout and the arrest of several reporters during the final, middle-of-the-night militarized “clean up” and Thursday’s “day of action”—may yet tip the scales toward a more normalized relationship between the city and the NYPD. It is the culmination of a scandal-ridden year. A partial list of the past year’s troubles includes the trial of two cops accused of rape; a leak-hindered internal affairs investigation into a ticket fixing conspiracy that some rank-and-file officers responded to by spitting on lawyers in the courthouse; a belated outcry over the frequently intrusive stop-and-frisk policy focused on poor and minority neighborhoods; revelations of the department’s secret intelligence program to collect information on Muslims; and the rough arrest of a black City Council member at a parade.

This leaves out, to name one major recent scandal, the 14-year NYPD veteran recently found guilty of planting drugs on an innocent subject. (It also leaves out a third cop credibly accused of rape.) (And the eight officers recently charged with smuggling guns — and cigarettes! — into the city.)

At the crooked narcotics detective’s trial, a retired cop claimed the practice of planting drugs to inflate arrest numbers was widespread, yet another unintended consequence of our data-driven mayor’s insistence on an NYPD that measures success by the number of people — predominantly young black people — subjected to the criminal justice system. The mayor has, in the past, dismissed serious criticisms of his “CompStat” system with ad hominem attacks on police unions.

In New York City, of course, each bad cop, or ring of bad cops, or unruly mob of bad cops is treated as an outlier. This is a press — especially the tabloid papers — that has long simply not cared that the NYPD routinely lies to journalists as a matter of departmental policy. It is widely known, for example, that arrest and ticket quotas exist, NYPD denials being approximately as worthless as a summons mistakenly issued to someone with Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association connections. Police statements on violent incidents are routinely contradicted by video evidence. Kelly feigns ignorance of his department’s methods of maximizing marijuana arrests.

But an army thinks differently than a simple civilian police force. They’re accountable only to their commanders, and not to the citizenry.

For instance, I learned that basically everyone in Congress is demanding that Eric Holder retire because of something to do with Solyndra. Someone on a panel said that the people in Congress demanding Holder’s retirement were not very important members of Congress but that person was shouted down because every member of Congress is important, especially when they are providing grist for the Fox faux-scandal mill.

I also learned that there is a baby missing, named Baby Lisa, and that Baby Lisa’s mother almost certainly is responsible, because Baby Lisa’s mother had an online dating profile. I had literally never heard of Baby Lisa before Monday, but Fox covered Baby Lisa more than any other story save the Penn State situation. The Murdoch tabloid ethos still drives Fox as much as the Ailes political agenda.

And I learned that Megyn Kelly and her child take the subway, which I found slightly hard to believe.

But here’s what I learned about Occupy Wall Street and its related movements across the nation: They are gross.

On Monday, most Occupy movement coverage was handled by field correspondent Casey Stegall, a bland, sufficiently handsome local news veteran working out of Fox’s Los Angeles bureau. His noon report referenced “the squalor of the camps,” used quotes from city and police sources exclusively, and only featured anti-Occupy “man on the street” clips. (One lady was disgusted at the presence of a futon at Occupy Oakland.)

An hour later, Stegall returned for another report hitting the same notes: A “squalid mess,” “defecating, urinating, and vomiting all over the plaza,” and more clips of citizens grossed out by the dinginess of those squalid hippies in their squalor. Plus: Reports of violence! “Clearly the violence detracts from the message they’re trying to send,” Stegall said, though “the message they’re trying to send” was never once addressed.

Occupy wasn’t mentioned again until 3:45, when Shepard Smith had a brief but mostly objective report on Occupy Wall Street from Jonathan Hunt. Shep mentioned that the demonstrations are against “what they call corporate greed.” Hunt brought up reports of TB, because “crime and squalor” were clearly Fox’s talking points, but Smith’s segment was largely fair, if not particularly sympathetic.

Bret Baier’s “Special Report” led with a brief attack on Michael Moore for being fat attempting to “profit” off the movement, but then it was back to Baby Lisa.

So in a workday’s worth of news, there was not one actual interview with an occupier, or even someone remotely sympathetic to the Occupy movement. There was only one mention of what the Occupy movement is supposed to be about, in fact. The rest was filth and crime.

Much more time was spent dissecting President Obama’s ill-considered but essentially harmless statement about how America has become “lazy” about attracting foreign investment. “Obama calls Americans lazy” was the official attack line, and every show devoted at least one full segment to a lengthy discussion of Obama’s contempt for America.

On early Tuesday morning, Occupy Wall Street was forcibly evicted by the NYPD in a violent paramilitary raid. Hundreds of protesters and multiple members of the press were arrested. The police used tear gas and, reportedly, an anti-terror “acoustic” weapon. On Tuesday, though, Fox was still much more concerned with former Penn State coach and accused child abuser Jerry Sandusky than with the raid and eviction.

“Fox & Friends” did cheer the raid, putting a very Fox “GOOD RIDDANCE” chyron on footage of police in Zuccotti Park. But I didn’t hear more about the raid until 10:10 a.m., when Martha MacCallum teased an upcoming segment: After the break, Steve Forbes would be on to discuss the Occupy Wall Street eviction!

Yes, Steve Forbes, the millionaire media scion and flat-tax advocate. The Forbes segment was only half devoted to OWS, with Forbes offering pearls of wisdom like “I wish they’d go to Washington and start protesting at the Federal Reserve.” MacCallum and Forbes agreed that the Federal Housing Administration would also be a worthy target of an occupation, and then they began talking about Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.

At 11, Julie Banderas did a routine cable news report on the eviction, though at no point was it mentioned that the city and the NYPD were in violation of a court order requiring them to allow protesters and their belongings back into the park until the judge had ruled on the legality of anti-occupation rules. They played video of Michael Bloomberg’s statement, and, obviously, did not counter it with any sort of statement from occupiers or their legal representatives.

The same, more or less, an hour later. “This is now a legal issue, and as we get more information we’ll pass it on to you.”

At 1:00, the vicious Megyn Kelly takes over, and all the news is delivered with an extra dose of sneering. “The party’s over,” she said of the OWS raid, bringing up “sanitary problems” again, and not mentioning reports of police brutality or the arrests of reporters.

OWS was ignored until, once again, Shepard Smith came on at 3 to actually treat the story with a bit of nuance and objectivity. He led by mentioning the court order the city was ignoring, then went back to Jonathan Hunt, who noted “a marked rise in tensions as we await the judge’s ruling.” Smith: “Protesters and some journalists, for that matter, are saying cops were heavy-handed here.” Hunt, trying very hard not to accuse the NYPD of what they did: “We cannot independently confirm any of that.” Though he did note that the police moved all cameras well away from the park.

Smith then hosted an annoying discussion of the legal issues with two Fox lawyers: Arthur Aidala and Randy Zelin. For two New York criminal defense attorneys, they’re both markedly pro-NYPD. Zelin in particular was excitedly scaremongering. OWS will “shut down the New York City Criminal Courts system” — and the city as a whole — if the judge rules against them, Zelin predicted, repeatedly calling the prospect of civil disobedience “scary.” Smith pointed out that widespread civil disobedience “is not a new concept in America.” “No, but it’s scary nonetheless,” Zelin responded. Smith brought up anti-Vietnam protests, and the segment ended with one of the lawyers “joking” that we should send all the protesters to Guantanamo Bay.

The “scary” prospect of widespread action was clearly the late-developing talking point du jour, as 4 p.m. host Neil Cavuto repeatedly seemed almost annoyed that occupiers weren’t violently rioting. He kept hyping the prospect of eventual riots, even as nothing of the sort materialized. “This might not go down well,” he said. “This might get dicey,” he prayed. (He also brought on South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem, who said she thinks Occupiers should instead be Occupying the White House.)

At 4:18, Cavuto brought on libertarian commentator Andrew Napolitano, a man who is definitely a kook but who is at least a kook with principles beyond naked Republican partisanship. Napolitano declined to criticize OWS at all, instead attacking the city of New York for requiring private corporations to provide public (or semi-public) spaces. He correctly noted that the NYPD and the city were in violation of a court order ordering them to allow protesters in the park, and when Cavuto brought up his much-hoped-for riots (“this could get messy, legal argument notwithstanding”), Napolitano simply said that if the judge ruled against OWS, protesters attempting to Occupy Zuccotti could be charged with contempt of court.

After the judge ruled against allowing OWS to have tents and structures in the park, Cavuto bemoaned the “subdued response so far,” as everyone simply refused to riot. “Whether that remains the case, we’ll see.” Then legal anaylist Mercedes Colwin — another defense attorney — said “bravo for the judge,” because “it was really all about public safety.” (If OWS isn’t violent, it is at least still gross.) Cavuto prayed once more for mass arrests, and then it was on to Fox News’ “The Five,” a panel discussion show so deeply stupid and awful that I cannot bring myself to summarize a single thing anyone said on it.

So after two days of the supposedly “news”-based Fox News programming, I now know that the entire Occupy movement is mostly about their right to vomit and defecate wherever they like. And it threatens to become violent — deadly violent! — at literally any moment.

I imagine coverage of this sort — the “grossness” of the entire thing, with any discussion of the movement’s aims or goals entirely absent — is a large part of what made public opinion of the Occupy movement grow slightly sour.

The fact that the eviction was done in violation of a court order doesn’t bother them:

The amorphous agglomeration known as Occupy Wall Street had transformed a space intended for open community access into a round-the-clock shantytown — and they claimed that the First Amendment guaranteed their right to do as they pleased.

This is not constitutional wisdom. This is self-important, self-indulgent bilge. And a Manhattan Supreme Court justice who ordered a halt to the eviction pending a hearing needs to emphatically so state.

They seem totally uninterested in the NYPD’s excessively violent tactics, including the harassment, abuse and arrest of various reporters, which doesn’t get a mention in the editorial. Then a Daily News reporter was arrested, along with at least two other reporters.

Now, according to the Daily News Twitter feed, at least, the NYPD’s behavior is “alarming.” The newspaper has alerted its attorney.

The Daily News is owned and published by billionaire real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman.

As former peace officer and Iraq veteran Arthur Rizer and co-author Joseph Hartman write, the police arms race has very clearly spread well beyond the urban borders of the only cities to actually be targeted by foreign terrorists.

Now, police officers routinely walk the beat armed with assault rifles and garbed in black full-battle uniforms. When one of us, Arthur Rizer, returned from active duty in Iraq, he saw a police officer at the Minneapolis airport armed with a M4 carbine assault rifle — the very same rifle Arthur carried during his combat tour in Fallujah.

The extent of this weapon “inflation” does not stop with high-powered rifles, either. In recent years, police departments both large and small have acquired bazookas, machine guns, and even armored vehicles (mini-tanks) for use in domestic police work.

What possible need does your average American police department have for a tank? I mean, besides giving it to Steven Seagal so that he can kill a puppy during a raid on a suspected cock-fighter that’s being filmed for a reality show.

Turning police departments into quasi-National Guard regiments isn’t just a huge waste of resources, it’s also dangerous and demoralizing. A militarized police force makes the citizenry — especially minorities — feel like they’re living under a military occupation. (As with most police abuses, it’s generally easier to ignore for members of the classes not routinely stopped, frisked and thrown in jail for minor drug offenses.) It’s unsettling and undemocratic. And the cops start to feel like occupiers.

The most serious consequence of the rapid militarization of American police forces, however, is the subtle evolution in the mentality of the “men in blue” from “peace officer” to soldier. This development is absolutely critical and represents a fundamental change in the nature of law enforcement. The primary mission of a police officer traditionally has been to “keep the peace.” Those whom an officer suspects to have committed a crime are treated as just that – suspects. Police officers are expected, under the rule of law, to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, even the “bad guys.” For domestic law enforcement, a suspect in custody remains innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, police officers operate among a largely friendly population and have traditionally been trained to solve problems using a complex legal system; the deployment of lethal violence is an absolute last resort.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained to identify and kill the enemy. This is a problem. Cops are increasingly seeing the citizens they’re hired to protect as “the enemy.” This is in part how nonviolent protesters end up tear-gassed and shot at. This is part of why violence is so often the first resort of cops dealing with any sort of tricky situation, rather than the last. The idea that we need our cops to be the heavily armed soldiers of the streets — instead of, say, social workers with the power to arrest — leads to bad recruiting, bad training, unnecessary deaths, mass distrust of the police by vulnerable communities, and the contemptuous feeling of many cops that they themselves are above the law.

The authors identify 9/11 as the start of this trend. But I agree with Reason magazine that it actually all started with the war on drugs. Radley Balko did the essential research on the subject a few years back, and most paramilitary police actions that end up going horribly wrong are anti-drug raids. The Patriot Act itself is routinely used to fight the drug war. The argument that these tactics are necessary to keep us safe from scary foreign terrorists falls apart when you see how often all this firepower is directed at Americans looking only to get high or make a buck getting someone else high.