Hu Zexi, People’s Daily
In recent years, racial discrimination, gun violence, and political polarization in the U.S. have led to massive demonstrations and even street violence in some cases. If demonstrations break the legal bottom line, the U.S. law enforcement departments will surely take tough measures to quell the violence.
On June 29, far-right extremists and left-wing activists took to the streets for a standoff in Portland, Oregon. Shortly after the demonstration started, projections began to appear.
After that, the law enforcement department revoked the permit for the demonstration and declared the situation a riot. Flash bombs and rubber bullets were used to bring the standoff to a close and perpetrators were arrested.
The law enforcement effort was widely supported by local politicians and the high efficiency of the police officers to control violence was applauded by the local community. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler pointed out that whoever resorts to violence under the guise of freedom of expression is unwelcome in the city.
The U.S. law enforcement officers won’t tolerate violent protesters, not to mention that the protesters may challenge or endanger the security of the police officers.
James Dudley at San Francisco State University is a 32-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department where he retired as deputy chief of the Patrol Bureau.
Dudley had dealt with multiple cases of social unrest. He told People’s Daily that when protests become violent activities and protesters damage public property, the police officers may consider use force. As he sees it, “arson and attacks by protesters should not be tolerated in any country, and offenders should be arrested and removed”.
Henry Chang-Yu Lee was the former director of the Connecticut State Police. He had dealt with some most important cases in the country, including the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and the 9/11 attacks. According to Lee, the U.S. local police agencies usually deal with small-scale violent demonstrations, first by taking evidence pictures and then arresting the offenders.
For large-scale violent protests, the state police will deploy fire fighting trucks to disperse the protesters and explosion-proof vehicles to separate protesters and pedestrians, and arrest the heads of the protesters or those who attack the police.
If the demonstrations prove to be bigger and the situations are more severe, the national guards will take such actions as firing smoke bombs and tear gas, declaring a state of emergency and imposing a curfew.
The strong and tough measures taken by the U.S. government to quell massive riots are still remembered by many Americans even until today.
In 1992, the largest riot in the U. S. in the 20th century broke out in Los Angeles. To quell the riot, the then U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush even dispatched the 1st Marine Division and the 7th Infantry Division. Statistics show that about 12,000 people were arrested.
In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street campaign swept across the U.S., and law enforcement agencies were highly vigilant. During the clearance of the campaign at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, the center of the movement, New York police dispatched thousands of police officers and arrested 200 protesters who refused to cooperate.
In 2014, a major racial riot took place in Ferguson, Missouri. The governor of the state declared a state of emergency and dispatched a large number of law enforcement officers and heavy equipment such as armored vehicles to suppress the riot.
In 2015, racial riots broke out again in Baltimore, Maryland. The governor of the state also declared a state of emergency, imposed a curfew, and mobilized thousands of National Guard members to quell the riots.
The U.S. public does not need to worry about the lack of law enforcement. On the contrary, excessive law enforcement and violent law enforcement have been a major problem facing American society for a long time.
According to data released by the FBI in 2017, U.S. law enforcement agencies approved more than 10 million arrests (excluding arresting of traffic violators) in 2016, and an average of 3,298.5 people per 100, 000 residents were arrested. According to The Washington Post, U.S. police shot and killed 998 people in 2018 alone.
Why do American politicians, who will never question law enforcement in their own country, now groundlessly accuse law enforcement in other parts of the world, notably Hong Kong? Some experts said that this fully exposed the double standards of American politicians.
After violent clashes between far-right and radical left groups in Portland this summer, Ted Cruz, a senior conservative politician and Senator from Texas, filed a resolution with another Senator, expressing severe condemnation against violence and calling for classification of far-left Antifa groups who covered their faces with black masks or bandanas as a domestic terrorist organization.
Faced with repeated acts of violence by Antifa groups, many U.S. law enforcement officials have demanded legislation to ban the public from wearing masks to participate in demonstrations. In fact, various versions of the “anti-mask laws” have long been implemented in many states and counties in the U.S.
However, when dangerous people in regions of other countries took to the streets to commit crimes, some American politicians took the opposite position. Not long ago, when the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government started to formulate an anti-mask law, many people in the U.S. criticized the move, saying willfully that it would damage Hong Kong’s “democracy “.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn, chairman of the Kuhn Foundation of the U.S., told People’s Daily that no nation can allow violence to disrupt its society and undermine its economy, rule of law is the basis of national life, economic development, and civil society, and police have the responsibility to contain violence and restrain lawbreakers.
In Kuhn’s view, Hong Kong police have generally exercised restraint over the past few months, while some extreme demonstrators have repeatedly attempted to provoke the police, but certain American politicians still chose to criticize the Hong Kong police. What lies behind this is their deep-seated frustration at China’s remarkable rise and downright political opportunism, which is a deeper motive they might not state.
美式双重标准，根深蒂固的霸权逻辑
人民日报记者 胡泽曦
近年来，受种族歧视、枪支暴力、政治极化等深层社会弊端影响，美国不时爆发大规模游行示威，个别还演化成了街头暴力事件。每当有人在游行示威时逾越法律界限，美国执法部门必然强力出手。
今年6月29日，极右翼群体和左派激进分子在美国西北的俄勒冈州波特兰市举行“对峙式”游行，开始不久投掷物就在现场出现。随后，当地执法部门迅速取消游行许可，将现场状况判定为骚乱，使用闪光弹和橡皮子弹驱散人群，并对施暴者实施逮捕。波特兰警方的行为受到了当地政治人物的普遍支持，其高效行动还赢得不少公众赞赏。波特兰市长泰德·惠勒指出，无论是谁，以言论自由为幌子实施暴力行为的人，在波特兰都不会受欢迎。
在美国，执法人员对于公共示威者动用暴力手段完全不会容忍，更不用说示威者挑战执法或者危及执法人员安全。现任教于旧金山州立大学的詹姆斯·达德利曾任旧金山警察局副局长，有长达32年的执法经验，并亲自指挥处理过多起社会骚乱事件。他对本报记者表示，当抗议活动演变成暴力或破坏财产的行为时，警方就得有所行动。“任何国家都不应容忍纵火、攻击等行为，违法者必须被逮捕。”达德利如是强调。
曾参与调查处理美国前总统肯尼迪遇刺案、“9·11”事件等要案的康涅狄格州警政厅前厅长李昌钰介绍，在美国，一般小型的暴力游行集会由地方警察处理，摄影取证，事后逮捕；大的暴力游行集会由州警出动处理，消防车冲水驱散，用防暴车分离示威者和群众，现场逮捕领头人或袭警人员；如果规模更大、事态更严重，将由国民警卫队出动，使用烟幕弹、催泪弹等，宣布紧急命令、宵禁等。
时至今日，美国政府强力平息大规模骚乱的记忆，依旧留在许多美国人的脑海里。1992年，洛杉矶爆发美国20世纪最大骚乱，时任美国总统老布什为平息骚乱甚至出动了海军陆战队第一师以及陆军第七步兵师。统计显示，平息骚乱过程中，当局共逮捕了约1.2万人。2011年“占领华尔街”运动席卷全美，执法部门对该运动高度戒备。在该运动大本营曼哈顿祖科蒂公园清场过程中，纽约警方出动上千警力，逮捕了200名拒绝配合的抗议者。2014年，密苏里州小镇弗格森发生严重种族骚乱，该州州长宣布当地进入紧急状态，出动大量警员以及装甲车等重型装备平息骚乱。2015年，马里兰州巴尔的摩再度发生种族骚乱，该州州长同样宣布紧急状态并实施宵禁，同时还调动数千名国民警卫队员平息骚乱。
在美国国内，公众根本无需担心执法部门执法权威不足问题。相反，过度执法、暴力执法却是美国社会长期面对的一大难题。美国联邦调查局2017年发布的数据显示，2016年美国执法部门共实施逾1000万次逮捕（不包括违反交通规则的逮捕），平均每十万居民中有3298.5人被逮捕。据《华盛顿邮报》网站统计，美国警察仅2018年就射杀998人。
为何在国内处处讲究尊重执法的美国政客，却总是无端指责其他国家警方的正常执法行为？有专家表示，这充分暴露美国政客的双重标准。
今年夏天，波特兰市出现极右翼组织和激进左派组织的暴力冲突之后，资深保守派政治人物、得克萨斯州联邦参议员泰德·科鲁兹联合另一位联邦参议员提起一项决议案，严词谴责暴力，并呼吁将成员身穿黑衣、头戴面罩的激进左派组织“安提法”定性为国内恐怖组织。面对“安提法”成员屡屡头戴面罩实施暴力，许多美国执法人员提出要求，希望立法禁止公众头戴面罩参加示威游行。事实上，各种版本的“反面具法”早已在美国许多州和县市得到执行。
然而，当其他国家一些地方的暴徒上街作恶时，一些美国政客却拿出了截然相反的立场。不久前，当中国香港特区政府着手制订“反蒙面法”，美国一些人对这一在美已有悠久传统的法规，却抛出了许多怪声怪调，动辄称这将损害香港“民主”。
美国库恩基金会主席罗伯特·库恩对本报记者表示，任何国家都不能允许暴力行为破坏社会、破坏经济，法治是国家稳定、经济发展和社会有序的基础，警察有遏制暴力和违法者的责任。在库恩看来，过去几月来，香港警察总体保持克制，而极端示威者则一再试图激怒警方，美国政客如今选择批评香港警方，背后有他们不会明说、却更深层次的动机——“对中国崛起根深蒂固的不安和彻头彻尾的政治机会主义”。
