How NOT to Uphold Law and Order
Why Removing the Protesters From Lafayette Square Was Wrong
On June 1, federal authorities quickly and aggressively removed protesters from Lafayette Square, Washington D.C.
The common rationales for the government’s actions insist that they justifiably restricted freedom for the purpose of maintaining safety. But, considering the available evidence, these rationales dangerously skew the delicate balance between freedom and safety in a way that threatens both.
Rationale №1: Extending the Security Perimeter
The de jure rationale for removing the protesters was to extend the security perimeter around the White House. This was the rationale provided by Attorney General William Barr in a Fox News interview last Monday. By this rationale, the government’s actions on June 1 were comparable to the earlier extension of the security perimeter to the northern edge of Lafayette Square.
But most critics do not object to the existence of security perimeters nor their expansion for safety purposes; instead, they object to the fact that a peaceful assembly was violently interrupted with very little advance notice. This sentiment is reflected in an article by Vox columnist Matthew Yglesias in which he clarified that “starting at 7 pm, a group of officers forcibly expelling protesters from the park would have been enforcing the law” due to the pre-planned city-wide curfew announced earlier that day. However, writes Yglesias, clearing the square “at 6:36 pm or so served no real purpose except to make the law enforcement action flagrantly abusive.”
Attorney Benjamin Barr explains that the rule of law, an important principle for a free society, includes the mandate that “[l]aws may not be so complicated that they prevent average citizens from exercising basic liberties. Nor may government rules be formulated or changed by whim.”
Of course, the value of freedom must be balanced with the value of safety. In order to preserve safety, our government must be empowered to formulate rules for the establishment and enforcement of curfews and restricted areas during these tumultuous times. But, in order to preserve freedom, the rule of law insists that the government cannot change its rules on a whim since such changes inhibit law-abiding citizens from exercising their liberties. When citizens are given enough notice of a new rule before it goes into effect, they are able to plan their actions accordingly. This creates a sphere of liberty in which the citizen can speak, assemble, etc., without fear that their government will suppress them.
Announcing the 7 p.m. curfew hours before it went into effect gave protesters and others enough time to manage and abide by that rule. Similarly, the earlier extension of the White House security perimeter to the northern edge of Lafayette Park drew practically zero criticism since it occurred earlier in the day when fewer people were present.
Although the police gave verbal warnings to leave the square mere minutes before storming the area, this notice came much too late. Without enough prior communication, law enforcement officers expanding the security perimeter moved too quickly and too aggressively to respect the sphere of liberty that the protesters were entitled to.
Rationale №2: Protecting the President During His Photo Opportunity
The de facto rationale for removing the protesters was to secure a safe environment for President Trump to stage a photo opportunity in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. Around 6:10 p.m., the Secret Service was informed of the president’s plan to appear outside the church (Bump). “Following protocol, the Secret Service alerted other law enforcement agencies it would need help clearing the area for the president’s safety” (Leonnig et al.) The next day, Republican Senator John Cornyn defended the removal of protesters on the basis that “the President is free to go where he wants” and the Secret Service has the legal duty to clear anyone in his way “for security purposes.”
This rationale also defies the rule of law. A government with the power to change the rules on a whim infringes upon the citizen’s sphere of liberty. Of course, there may be moments when it’s necessary to remove large crowds on short notice for the safety of the president as they move through or enter a public area. But such moments should only occur when they are truly necessary.
Presidents are not sovereigns, they are servants. They do not have the right to go anywhere they want and forcibly remove law-abiding citizens from the area. We have accepted certain restrictions on our liberty for the safety of our public officials as they conduct the business of our nation. Abuse of this power reduces its legitimacy. To this end, the government should tread lightly when it intrudes upon the freedom of its citizens — it should strive to keep these intrusions as minuscule as reasonable and to limit such intrusions to important events.
When the government engages in a major violation of freedom for the relatively unimportant purpose of staging a ten-minute photo opportunity, it abuses its authority and undermines the purpose for which it stands: to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rationale №3: Disbanding a Violent Mob
The ex postfacto rationale for removing the protesters was due to their violence. In a statement released the following day, U.S. Park Police alleged that “violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids.” If these claims are true, they would greatly legitimize the aggressiveness with which law enforcement cleared the areas since the First Amendment only protects “the right of the people to peaceably assemble.”
The issue with this rationale is that no evidence exists to corroborate these claims. Video evidence reveals that a few individuals threw eggs, candy bars, and water bottles; however, the available information and non-governmental accounts point to a majorly peaceful protest.
I’m generally skeptical of retroactive explanations for the government’s use of force. Even if new evidence reveals violence amongst the protesters, I would hesitate to say it legitimizes the actions taken at Lafayette Square since actions should be judged on the basis of their intentions. Because intentions are formed prior to the execution of actions, information gathered after the fact cannot be used as justification for those actions.
References
Bump, P. (2020, June 5). Timeline: The clearing of Lafayette Square. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/02/timeline-clearing-lafayette-square/
Leonnig, C. D., Zapotosky, M., Dawsey, J., & Tan, R. (2020, June 2). Barr personally ordered removal of protesters near White House, leading to use of force against largely peaceful crowd. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-personally-ordered-removal-of-protesters-near-white-house-leading-to-use-of-force-against-largely-peaceful-crowd/2020/06/02/0ca2417c-a4d5-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&itid=lk_inline_manual_29
. . . equating a few racist cops with the entire law enforcement institution, or a few racist civilians with all of American society, is no different than equating a few black criminals with the entire black population . . .
. . . dismantling police departments isn’t reform, it’s a dangerous experiment that is guaranteed to make everything worse . . .
. . . The fatal flaw in violent activism is that it makes the issue of the messenger more important than the message . . .
