Tweet
The use of force
published: Sunday | January 20, 2008
Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer
Prime Minister Bruce Golding visits the house where five men were killed on Sunday during a police/military operation in Tivoli Garden, on Wednesday, January 16.
Don Robotham, Contributor
Inflation is shooting up above 15 per cent and the dollar has begun to slide again. Interest rates are rising sharply, with severe implications for the debt-servicing burden on our budget. The U.S. economy seems to be heading into recession with extremely serious implications for the Jamaican economy and society. Yet, little attention is being paid to these dramatic developments.
Instead, the past week has been consumed with discussions of the shoot-out in Tivoli Gardens. The issue before us is the use of lethal force by the State. In what circumstances, if any, is the use of lethal force by the State justified?
The loss of any life is always to be deplored, whether this be the life of security officers, ordinary citizens, or gunmen. I have serious reservations about the indiscri-minate use of deadly force by our security forces. But it would be foolish to second-guess security personnel who are putting their lives on the line to return some semblance of stability to the Jamaican society. In no country in the world, including the U.K. and the U.S.A., would shooting at the police with high-powered rifles be met with anything other than lethal force. Indeed, in the Menezes case in the U.K. last year, the unarmed Brazilian was summarily dispatched for merely being thought to be suspicious.
It is one thing to argue that the police are trigger-happy and often use kill-and-go tactics. It is another thing to argue that under no circumstances whatsoever should the security forces ever be permitted to use lethal force, even when known criminals are using high-powered rifles to shoot directly at them. Anyone who argues for an absolute ban on the use of lethal force by the security forces must say what they propose as a I hope they do not take any ludicrous position such as proposing community policing or youth rehabilitation. The issue before us is not whether lethal force should be the only or main method. The question is whether the use of lethal force should be one of the permitted methods in the arsenal of the security forces for certain situations.
Neglected officers
One of the most striking things about the reaction to the raid has been the complete neglect of the two security officers who were wounded. No human rights organisation has expressed the slightest interest in whether they are dead or alive. No TV cameras or talk-show hosts have sought out their family and friends. No news media have sought to find out how their children are managing. No one has posted their stories on YouTube or Facebook. Not even the Prime Minister, in his carefully crafted statement, showed the slightest concern for the wounded in the security forces. They have simply been used and refused. Is it that the lives of security personnel don't count?
There must be real regret for all casualties in the Tivoli raid. There must also be very serious concern about how the bodies of persons killed are treated after death. We must always try and show respect to the dead and especially to their families, irrespective of whether such persons were criminals or not. But why are we not showing an equal concern for the lives of members of our security forces?
Silence is golden
The most striking political aspect of these events has been not the Tivoli raid itself. The more striking thing has been the way in which Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Minister of National Security, Derrick Smith and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership have dealt with the issue. Up to this point, Minister Smith has maintained a stony silence. Likewise for the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The Mayor of Kingston and local-government representative for the area, Senator Desmond McKenzie, went further - he actually made positive remarks about the professionalism of the police. Mr. Golding himself made a belated intervention on Wednesday, fully three days after the raid and after the pressure from sections of his party had become unbearable. To say that this has raised an anti-Golding firestorm in certain sections of the JLP would be putting it mildly.
In the light of this intense pressure, Mr. Golding's statement was a model of moderation. So far, he has been very circumspect, calling for official procedures to be given their opportunity to work. This is a very positive sign and gives us hope that sanity will prevail. Of course, cynics and detractors abound. Some point to the astonishing rumours of divisions in Tivoli, of the Montego Bay origins of the gunmen, of threats which some of the gunmen have allegedly made against leading political figures and of who may have tipped off the police - all of which may have made it politically feasible for Mr. Golding to adopt his hands-off posture. Much of this may or may not be true but misses the point. Whatever the opportunistic conjuncture of circumstances which have made Mr. Golding's statesmanlike stand possible, the fact is he has taken a statesmanlike stance. Given the pressure that he has been under, he deserves credit and public support. This is what leadership is about.
Tough choices
The Tivoli raid emphasises yet again that in our fight against violent criminality, we face some tough choices. It is obvious that we cannot rely solely on community policing to deal with the ruthless criminals we face. It is equally obvious that we cannot simply use an indiscriminate kill-and-go strategy against gunmen at any and every opportunity. The challenge is how to specify the situations in which lethal state violence is permissible, and to elaborate and operationalise an effective legal framework to regulate such situations. Let me be crystal clear here: I am referring to the right of the security forces to use lethal force in situations which do not meet the current legal standards of self-defence.
The society must face the fact and make it plain that on some occasions, the use of lethal force is not just permissible, but is essential. We must also establish, as clearly as possible, the limits of this right. We also need to work out in detail how persons who might be killed in such situations are to be treated - there is to be no dumping of bodies into pickup trucks.
All this needs to be made explicitly clear in the rules of engagement and be approved at the highest political levels, including by the Minister of National Security, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister himself. The Opposition Spokesman on National Security should also be asked to sign off on these harsh but inescapable realities.
Consensus on a rights-governed framework is essential in our present crisis situation, otherwise we shall lose this fight. We cannot afford the constant second-guessing of the security forces. They must be heartily tired of the unbearable hypocrisy of it all. This is why I have repeatedly called for the establishment of a special segment of the judiciary to govern such operations as occurred in Tivoli. This is now more urgent than ever, because we can rest assured that this raid will not be the last. In fact, I am expecting a similar raid at any moment in a PNP-controlled community.
Rights-governed framework
The reason why a rights-governed framework is necessary is to protect both the human rights of citizens as well as to protect our security officers. Jamaican society cannot be asking security officers to take life with a wink and a nod, and then when they do exactly what we are demanding, throw our hands up in horror and turn around and berate them. If lethal force is the policy, then the situations in which it can be used must be defined explicitly and clearly for all to the world to know. Responsibility must be taken at the top, not shunted down on to the shoulders of Inspector Steve Brown who is only doing his duty as we have asked him to do it.
If, on the other hand, we take the view of some human rights activists that under no circumstances, except the most clear-cut cases of self-defence, should lethal force be used, then we must say so with equal force and clarity.
Our security forces have a right to know exactly where they stand. Jamaica faces huge economic challenges which will have the effect of aggravating social conditions and increasing the threat of violent crime. Clarity on crucial matters of security policy is therefore essential. The time for games has longed passed.
published: Sunday | January 20, 2008
Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer
Prime Minister Bruce Golding visits the house where five men were killed on Sunday during a police/military operation in Tivoli Garden, on Wednesday, January 16.
Don Robotham, Contributor
Inflation is shooting up above 15 per cent and the dollar has begun to slide again. Interest rates are rising sharply, with severe implications for the debt-servicing burden on our budget. The U.S. economy seems to be heading into recession with extremely serious implications for the Jamaican economy and society. Yet, little attention is being paid to these dramatic developments.
Instead, the past week has been consumed with discussions of the shoot-out in Tivoli Gardens. The issue before us is the use of lethal force by the State. In what circumstances, if any, is the use of lethal force by the State justified?
The loss of any life is always to be deplored, whether this be the life of security officers, ordinary citizens, or gunmen. I have serious reservations about the indiscri-minate use of deadly force by our security forces. But it would be foolish to second-guess security personnel who are putting their lives on the line to return some semblance of stability to the Jamaican society. In no country in the world, including the U.K. and the U.S.A., would shooting at the police with high-powered rifles be met with anything other than lethal force. Indeed, in the Menezes case in the U.K. last year, the unarmed Brazilian was summarily dispatched for merely being thought to be suspicious.
It is one thing to argue that the police are trigger-happy and often use kill-and-go tactics. It is another thing to argue that under no circumstances whatsoever should the security forces ever be permitted to use lethal force, even when known criminals are using high-powered rifles to shoot directly at them. Anyone who argues for an absolute ban on the use of lethal force by the security forces must say what they propose as a I hope they do not take any ludicrous position such as proposing community policing or youth rehabilitation. The issue before us is not whether lethal force should be the only or main method. The question is whether the use of lethal force should be one of the permitted methods in the arsenal of the security forces for certain situations.
Neglected officers
One of the most striking things about the reaction to the raid has been the complete neglect of the two security officers who were wounded. No human rights organisation has expressed the slightest interest in whether they are dead or alive. No TV cameras or talk-show hosts have sought out their family and friends. No news media have sought to find out how their children are managing. No one has posted their stories on YouTube or Facebook. Not even the Prime Minister, in his carefully crafted statement, showed the slightest concern for the wounded in the security forces. They have simply been used and refused. Is it that the lives of security personnel don't count?
There must be real regret for all casualties in the Tivoli raid. There must also be very serious concern about how the bodies of persons killed are treated after death. We must always try and show respect to the dead and especially to their families, irrespective of whether such persons were criminals or not. But why are we not showing an equal concern for the lives of members of our security forces?
Silence is golden
The most striking political aspect of these events has been not the Tivoli raid itself. The more striking thing has been the way in which Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Minister of National Security, Derrick Smith and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership have dealt with the issue. Up to this point, Minister Smith has maintained a stony silence. Likewise for the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The Mayor of Kingston and local-government representative for the area, Senator Desmond McKenzie, went further - he actually made positive remarks about the professionalism of the police. Mr. Golding himself made a belated intervention on Wednesday, fully three days after the raid and after the pressure from sections of his party had become unbearable. To say that this has raised an anti-Golding firestorm in certain sections of the JLP would be putting it mildly.
In the light of this intense pressure, Mr. Golding's statement was a model of moderation. So far, he has been very circumspect, calling for official procedures to be given their opportunity to work. This is a very positive sign and gives us hope that sanity will prevail. Of course, cynics and detractors abound. Some point to the astonishing rumours of divisions in Tivoli, of the Montego Bay origins of the gunmen, of threats which some of the gunmen have allegedly made against leading political figures and of who may have tipped off the police - all of which may have made it politically feasible for Mr. Golding to adopt his hands-off posture. Much of this may or may not be true but misses the point. Whatever the opportunistic conjuncture of circumstances which have made Mr. Golding's statesmanlike stand possible, the fact is he has taken a statesmanlike stance. Given the pressure that he has been under, he deserves credit and public support. This is what leadership is about.
Tough choices
The Tivoli raid emphasises yet again that in our fight against violent criminality, we face some tough choices. It is obvious that we cannot rely solely on community policing to deal with the ruthless criminals we face. It is equally obvious that we cannot simply use an indiscriminate kill-and-go strategy against gunmen at any and every opportunity. The challenge is how to specify the situations in which lethal state violence is permissible, and to elaborate and operationalise an effective legal framework to regulate such situations. Let me be crystal clear here: I am referring to the right of the security forces to use lethal force in situations which do not meet the current legal standards of self-defence.
The society must face the fact and make it plain that on some occasions, the use of lethal force is not just permissible, but is essential. We must also establish, as clearly as possible, the limits of this right. We also need to work out in detail how persons who might be killed in such situations are to be treated - there is to be no dumping of bodies into pickup trucks.
All this needs to be made explicitly clear in the rules of engagement and be approved at the highest political levels, including by the Minister of National Security, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister himself. The Opposition Spokesman on National Security should also be asked to sign off on these harsh but inescapable realities.
Consensus on a rights-governed framework is essential in our present crisis situation, otherwise we shall lose this fight. We cannot afford the constant second-guessing of the security forces. They must be heartily tired of the unbearable hypocrisy of it all. This is why I have repeatedly called for the establishment of a special segment of the judiciary to govern such operations as occurred in Tivoli. This is now more urgent than ever, because we can rest assured that this raid will not be the last. In fact, I am expecting a similar raid at any moment in a PNP-controlled community.
Rights-governed framework
The reason why a rights-governed framework is necessary is to protect both the human rights of citizens as well as to protect our security officers. Jamaican society cannot be asking security officers to take life with a wink and a nod, and then when they do exactly what we are demanding, throw our hands up in horror and turn around and berate them. If lethal force is the policy, then the situations in which it can be used must be defined explicitly and clearly for all to the world to know. Responsibility must be taken at the top, not shunted down on to the shoulders of Inspector Steve Brown who is only doing his duty as we have asked him to do it.
If, on the other hand, we take the view of some human rights activists that under no circumstances, except the most clear-cut cases of self-defence, should lethal force be used, then we must say so with equal force and clarity.
Our security forces have a right to know exactly where they stand. Jamaica faces huge economic challenges which will have the effect of aggravating social conditions and increasing the threat of violent crime. Clarity on crucial matters of security policy is therefore essential. The time for games has longed passed.
Comment