Seattle was a riot Action Speaks! revisits the 1999 anti-globalization outburst BY IAN DONNIS

Norm Stamper is an unlikely figure when it comes to the public image associated with the riotous World Trade Organization (WTO) gathering in Seattle in 1999. Stamper, Seattle’s reform-minded police chief, had upset a number of his officers by publicly sharing frank recollections a year earlier about the racist, belligerent atmosphere of his early days in the department. But when the WTO gathering proved an unmitigated disaster for organizers — who presided over a riot and a series of skirmishes — Stamper felt compelled to resign.

While police departments hosting major political conventions in cities like Philadelphia and Boston responded by squelching the civil rights of demonstrators with "free speech zones" and similar tactics, Stamper has fired back by writing Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing (Nation Books, 2005). Stamper uses the book to offer an insider’s perspective on the WTO protests, as well as a pointed critique of the most entrenched problems of American policing.

On Wednesday, October 26, from 5:30 to 7 pm, the 1999 anti-globalization march in Seattle will be the subject of the final installment of the Action Speaks! discussion series, held at AS220, 115 Empire Street, Providence, for 2005. The series, which examines "underappreciated days in history that changed America," focuses on the broader theme of "the commons" and public ownership (the Phoenix is a cosponsor). A related documentary, Get Up, Stand Up: The Story of Pop Music and Protest, will be broadcast on RI-PBS (Channel 36) on Monday, October 24 at 9 pm.

Joining Stamper for the discussion at AS220 will be Harvard professor Robert Lawrence, author of Crimes and Punishment: Retaliation Under the WTO and Globalphobia; and Dennis Brutus, a poet, writer, and professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh.

Stamper took part last week in an e-mail interview with the Phoenix.

What are the primary problems with contemporary American law enforcement?

The overarching problem is structural. American police forces are organized as paramilitary bureaucracies, rigid, hidebound, resistant to change. The arrangement gives rise to a workplace culture that too often produces bad behavior on the streets, along with a persistent pattern of denial and defensiveness. It distances police officers from the communities they serve, and paradoxically, winds up exerting less meaningful control — the rationale for the system — over police conduct and performance. Deep patterns of racism, sexism, and homophobia continue to exist in too many agencies. Inadequate attention is paid to prevention and enforcement in the field of domestic violence. Finally, the institution lacks adequate means and measures of accountability, both internally and externally.

What did you learn from the response you led to the 1999 WTO protest in Seattle?

That we got snookered. Despite thousands of hours of planning, preparation, and training, we were overwhelmed . . . and outsmarted. I also learned that gassing nonviolent demonstrators on the morning of day 2, no matter how smart it seemed at the time, was a huge mistake. It took me five years after the event to come to that realization.

You’re a vocal critic of the war on drugs. Why don’t we hear the same kind of criticism from more people in law enforcement?

Fear. Rank-and-file cops are in the best position to see the multiple lunacies of the drug war. But those who "get it" are afraid that speaking out will cost them their friends in blue who see it otherwise. They may believe, with good reason, that going public with their views means they’ve seen their last promotion, or a chance to work days, or to get that specialized assignment they’ve been eyeing. And police chiefs? They’re afraid they’ll lose their badge. Of course, most cops (including chiefs) are True Believers. They’re swallowed the relentless hype of politicians, the fatally flawed propaganda of the "drug enforcement industry." They’ve grown dependent on federal money and assets seized from drug dealers. They’ve not allowed their imaginations to picture an alternative — a more humane, more effective, less expensive way to go.

How much credit do police departments deserve for the big drops in crime in scores of American cities since the early ’90s?

Considerable — but not as much as they claim. Theories for the reduction abound: more prisons; three strikes; trying kids as adults; mandatory minimums at sentencing; shifting demographics; improved economic opportunities (for some) in the late ’90s; community policing (with its emphasis on repairing [metaphorical] broken windows and solving problems); selective enforcement of drug trafficking and gang bangers. I do believe that in those cities where the police have forged authentic, durable problem-solving partnerships with the community, they deserve a whole lot of credit.

When it comes to criminal justice policy, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox says politicians focus on the three Rs — revenge, retaliation, and retribution — because doing so leads to the fourth R — reelection. What would it take to effectively challenge this focus?

An aroused, insistent citizenry. The three Rs may guarantee reelection, but there are two more Rs begging for attention: restorative justice (with its emphasis on another R: restitution) and reentry. I have no trouble jailing, for life, those among us who are sociopathically evil, who’ve demonstrated they can’t or won’t behave nonviolently.

But locking up nonviolent offenders, including particularly those arrested on drug offenses, for long stretches of time? That kind of revenge is expensive, about $30,000 per year, per prisoner. Our prisons house approximately 2.1 million inmates, about 600,000 of who are released in a given year. Failure to provide decent accommodations, fair treatment, and the kind of education and training that most inmates need if they’re to be successful on reentry, is just plain nuts; Likewise the tendency to treat reentering ex-offenders as second-class citizens. Those returning to the community are in desperate need of jobs, job training, housing, health-care, child-care. If we don’t want another R — recidivism — to raise its ugly head, we’d better get smart, if not humane, in how we treated prisoners and ex-offenders.

Can citizens in a given community contribute to the improvement of their own police department?

Absolutely. The place to start, I think, is in the mind. If citizens conceive of their local police department as theirs, that’s half the battle. The police in this country belong to the people, not the other way around. At least that’s the theory. To make it a reality, citizens must organize, mobilize, and assert their right to influence police policies and practices . . . and to carry out meaningful civilian oversight in the form of investigative and adjudicative powers. I don’t think citizens should have the right or the responsibility for disciplining cops, however. That’s the job of the police chief. Another thing citizens can do to improve their local PD? Make sure the cops are well-paid, treated well, and trained and equipped to do the job properly.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.