When Ray Kelly, the man Barack Obama is currently considering to lead homeland security, was the New York City police commissioner, he allegedly had a policy of terrorising black and Latino neighbourhoods.

A hearing into the city's stop-and-frisk policies in spring heard how Kelly told state senator Eric Adams that “he targeted and focused on [black and Latino youth] because he wanted to instil fear in them every time they left their homes that they could be targeted by the police”.

The hearing also heard a secret recording of South Bronx deputy inspector Christopher McCormack telling a subordinate to stop “the right people at the right time, the right location”, and focus stop-and-frisks on “male blacks” between 14 and 21.

A decision on the constitutionality of the city's stop-and-frisk practices is expected any time now, marking the latest in a summer of legal showdowns that have exposed both the power and partiality of the American state. Many who previously understood the legal system and its enforcers to be dispassionate arbiters of justice working in the interests of society as a whole have been forced to re-evaluate their assumptions.

First came the trial of Bradley Manning, charged in a military court with “aiding the enemy” for passing diplomatic cables and other classified military information to WikiLeaks. Then came the manhunt for Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, who leaked evidence of mass snooping. More recently there was the trial of George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watchman in Florida who pursued Trayvon Martin, a young, black, unarmed teen, and shot him dead after Martin confronted him. Soon will come the verdict on stop-and-frisk.

Each, clearly, is its own case, with its own dynamics. There are many who will favour prosecution in one case but not in another. The point here is not that the cases raise identical issues.

And yet they share some crucial traits: each, in its own way, raises fundamental questions about the function and purpose of the American state, the moral underpinnings of the legal system in which it is grounded, and the degree to which the law is designed to work for or against the people in whose name it operates. In each case, in different ways, the following questions become acute: to whom is the state responsible? Who is it supposed to protect? And who is it supposed to protect them from? Manning was sentenced to 90 years (down from 136) after the “aiding the enemy” count was dropped; Zimmerman was acquitted; Snowden was granted asylum in Russia after his US passport was revoked, leaving him holed up in the Moscow airport for weeks.

Snowden's case is the most blatant. The government insists the mass collection of phone data and surveillance of internet communications—much of which is overseen by a court that few knew existed and which operates in secret—is essential to keep people safe. When questioned about the existence of this type of surveillance, those in charge of it lied “for reasons of security”.

If people knew they would worry, went the argument, they are safer in their ignorance. Trust us and move on; nothing to see here. Put bluntly, Americans have been told that they are being spied on and misinformed for their own good, leaving them simultaneously infantilised and criminalised.

Zimmerman's acquittal is the most challenging because this ostensibly was the judicial system working as it should, complete with televised trial by jury.

The acquittal on grounds of self-defence essentially means an unarmed boy has no legal protection against an armed man who, ignoring the advice of the police, decides to follow and shoot him. In such a situation the insistence that the jury faithfully upheld the law is not comforting but deeply troubling. For it confirms the suspicion that the law is deeply selective in terms of whom it seeks to protect and to pursue.

The stop-and-frisk case combines the paternalistic logic of the NSA with the crude “policing” strategy of Zimmerman. The NYPD's defence has been that it is in the best interests of the people who live in certain neighbourhoods to have their sons, lovers and fathers systemically profiled and systematically harassed. In the hearings McCormack was also recorded saying: “99 per cent of the people in this community are great, hardworking people, who deserve to walk to the train, walk to their car, walk to the store, without becoming crime victims.”

Kelly's defenders say he was referring to policing in high-crime areas in general. This is their defence: we must terrorise this village in order to save it.

Those who defend this version of the all-powerful, all-caring state have little choice but to demonise those who oppose it. They assume their powers on the basis that they are best qualified to know what's best for the public, even when the public thinks differently. Those who challenge such hubris are dealt with severely.

The enemy in the NSA scandal is not those who are spying on you and lying about it, but the one who tells you about it. The criminal, in the Manning case, is not the soldiers who murder innocent civilians and laugh about it or the politicians who sent them to war but the young man who exposes their crimes.

The state is right to be worried. For while it has aggregated power, it has failed to garner the influence to sustain or justify it. Manning said he hoped by releasing the cables he would spark “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms”. The leaks informed the Arab spring, revealing the venality of the leaders and the complicity of the US. When Snowden came out as a whistleblower, he said his greatest fear was “that nothing will change”. As Obama moves to modestly reform the NSA, the public he claims to be protecting shows growing support for Snowden. Neither the government nor the judiciary has been able to point to a single credible example of how its secrecy, neglect, deception or persecution in these cases has protected anybody or anything. When they insist such measures are crucial for security, they evidently mean security of the state - not the people who live in it.

Following Zimmerman's acquittal, Obama was keen to point out that “America is a nation of laws”. Nobody doubts that. What is less clear is whether it is a nation of justice.

By arrangement with the Guardian

More From This Section

Watching Modi, the maestro, at work

SHAHJAHANPUR: The distance from New Delhi to Shahjahanpur is slightly less than 200 miles; a four-lane highway runs...

Why do so many people die in ferry accidents?

Ferries in developing countries are often old vessels, sometimes operating in waterways for which they weren’t designed.

Women edge into Gulf boardrooms as societies shift

DUBAI: Amina al-Rustamani, a member of a prominent UAE family, raised eyebrows among friends and relatives when she...

Gabriel Garcia Marquez: An influence ‘all over the planet’

Far beyond wider Hispanic world, Marquez’s influence is felt by and plays out in work of authors all over the planet.


Comments are closed.

Comments (9)

Rash
August 13, 2013 2:57 pm

We kill our citizens when they ask questions and don't take care of them even when they keep silence........

WishingJustice
August 13, 2013 3:02 pm

This is a very good account of USA, that would help the conservative elements here to rejoice at the criminal nature of US state. For us, the important thing is to look at our own state of affairs and seriously think about the similarity we find in USA and Pakistan in the case of injustice and victimizing our own people. USA may get out of this problem by change in policy but we are going deeper into the rabbit hole of self deception and self destruction.

zafars
August 13, 2013 5:31 pm

While a very good article, the story of Zimmerman is incorrect, it was Trayvon who started the fight not Zimmerman..

Feroz
August 13, 2013 6:41 pm

Haha, "By arrangement with the Guardian". Nuf said!

Feroz
August 13, 2013 6:44 pm

Hahaha. "By arrangement with the Guardian" Nuf said!

WeAreSheep
August 13, 2013 9:59 pm

@zafars: Apparently you didn't read the article. It says "after Martin confronted him." Zimmerman was the instigator. Started following the teen thinking he was suspiicous. He definitely provoked the "fight".

Md Imran
August 13, 2013 10:51 pm

yabba dabba doo

Khan
August 13, 2013 11:03 pm

We worry too much about the US and West and not about us. Clean your own house before you start looking at others.

I guess it is easy to point the fingers at others and laugh at them than look in the mirror at yourself.

Yousaf
August 14, 2013 11:58 am

This man Snowden is a traitor to his nation. What would have Pakistanis done if a Pakistani Intelligence officer would have gone on record and spilled the state secrets?

Explore: Indian elections 2014
Explore: Indian elections 2014
How much do you know about Indian Elections?
How much do you know about Indian Elections?
Cartoons
E-PAPER
Front Page