Comments on: Who wants the army on the streets of New Zealand?

By: Military police on the highways of America (Part 1) « Kiwi Polemicist

Military police on the highways of America (Part 1) « Kiwi Polemicist — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:36:01 +0000

[...] police on the highways of America (Part 1) In earlier posts I have written about a political candidate’s suggestion that the army assist the police in New Zealand, and about the police carrying guns unnecessarily. How long before we see what is happening in the [...]

By: Who are the police really serving? « Kiwi Polemicist

Who are the police really serving? « Kiwi Polemicist — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:08:54 +0000

[...] are the police really serving? In my earlier post I spoke about a proposal to get the army to assist the police in dealing with gangs. This proposal [...]

By: kiwipolemicist

kiwipolemicist — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:38:10 +0000

Thank you for that clarification Mr Dennis. However, the police are permanently short staffed, and if that is used as an excuse for calling on the army then the army will be permanently assisting the police. The “war” that Mr Lewis refers to is a war which is created by the State, and the emotive language used by Mr Lewis is the same as that used by politicians everywhere to justify the use of force by the State and the curtailment of civil liberties by the State, e.g. “The War on Terror”.

How will you deliver 1,700 extra police when Labour has struggled to deliver 1,000? If drugs were legalised, as I discussed in an earlier post, there may be no need for more police. Furthermore, increasing police numbers increases the powers of the State.

Also, you talk about the police accessing ‘individuals’ in the army, then you talk about the army assisting on a ‘bust out in the bush’. It is a reasonable assumption that assisting on a bust in the bush is going to require an army force, not an army individual.

The army and the police are essentially the same thing – a means for the State to impose its will upon people by force – but the use of the army in a role reserved for police by convention is a characteristic of totalitarianism, and thus is to be avoided at all costs by those who value liberty.

I stand by my comments: the use of the army for law enforcement is a “line in the sand” that should never be crossed.

By: Mr Dennis

Mr Dennis — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:43:36 +0000

I understand that Mr Lewis is referring to police being able to access individuals in the army with particular relevant skills when needed, when the police are short staffed. The long-term solution is to get more police – initially we are promising another 1,700 – because the army isn’t trained for police work, they have their own jobs to do, and you don’t want the army roaming the streets targeting civilians.

But in the short term, when police are short-staffed for a particular operation where some army skills may be of use (say for example a dangerous drug or terrorist bust out in the bush where the gang members are known to be well armed), being able to access some army expertise could be a great help.

Mr Lewis was not referring to having squads of infantry marching the streets or anything like that, we certainly wouldn’t want that, unfortunately in the brief comment he made he did not have the space to elaborate and explain what he meant so I completely understand that you took it this way.