Musings on Race and Police – Unintended Consequences

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio generated a great deal of criticism from police spokesmen and conservative commentators when he revealed in a press conference that he had advised his half-black sons that their race made them targets for extra NYPD police scrutiny that white youths would not face.

Critics cited this as evidence that the mayor was hostile to the city’s police force, noting further that the presence of race-baiter Al Sharpton as a close advisor left no doubt.

Former mayor Rudy Giuliani has been particularly tough on de Blasio, accusing him of perpetuating a myth that is refuted by the multi-ethnic composition of New York City’s police force that has been focusing on stopping crime in predominantly black neighborhoods since that is where statistics make clear a disproportionate level of criminal activity occurs.

 

I think the comments of the current mayor, however, are sensible on one level.  A black male youth is also (statistically proven) more likely to be stopped by police than a young white male.  So, parental advice to be prepared, and to act appropriately (be respectful and polite) to avoid a hostile police encounter makes sense.

 

Yet, on another level, that message is deceptive.  More broadly, anyone encountering police – regardless of race or age – should follow that advice.  Police have authority and reasonably expect everyone to recognize it.

[I’ve told many clients (white and black) over the years that, of course, some police officers will abuse their authority, but that arguing with a person with a gun is rarely a good idea.]

Thus, it’s fair to note that de Blasio’s comments – if confined to a family setting – would have been unobjectionable.  But, in a press conference, the clear inference, if not implication, was that the advice was only applicable to blacks since other races would get a pass from the police for rude, antagonistic conduct.

Ridiculous.

Disrespect from anyone will not be treated sympathetically by the police.  Expect a harsh reaction.

Romney for 2016… Are You Nuts?

Two losses in national politics should be equivalent to three strikes in baseball.  You’re out! 

A 2012 primary Romney-backer could be forgiven for thinking and hoping that the former Massachusetts governor had benefited greatly from the experience and lessons acquired from his failed effort in 2008 and would be far more effective “this time”. 

I was one.  I was wrong.  Mitt Romney repeated the same mistakes that doomed him on the first go-round.

It was really quite amazing on one level.  Plainly a bright and accomplished person in many activities, Romney would very likely have been a good president.  But because of his nature, he was unable to capitalize on the opportunity.

 

The Republican nominee again displayed an inability to relate to the American public.  He simply didn’t show authenticity when he tried “ever so painfully” to connect .  Remember his claim that he was “severely conservative”?  Real conservatives don’t talk like that.  Or how about photos of Mitt Romney on a jet-ski racing about on an exclusive resort lake?  Most Americans don’t vacation like that.  (Remember the John Kerry pictures from 2004 as he was on a sailboard in the Atlantic?  That was similarly panned.)

And then there were the episodes that showed an incredible naiveté (“incredible” because Romney should have already learned these lessons).   He gave a talk to a group of contributors and was surprised when his disparaging comments about 47% of the American public were recorded and publicized.

 

[How does anyone with even the briefest exposure to politics not absorb the truism that nothing spoken can be considered private – unless a dog is the sole listener?]

How about the term “self-deportation” when describing his recommendation to illegal immigrants?  It was a silly suggestion that generated guffaws from the media.

Simply put, Mitt Romney has a tin ear for politics.  The profession doesn’t suit him, much as he and many others wish the truth were otherwise.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this political affliction has disappeared.  If experience were the antidote, the cure would have been apparent in the last Romney campaign.  It was not, for the deficiency is a part of Mitt  Romney’s make-up.  It remains.  And, thus, a Romney campaign in 2016 would be no more successful than the last two efforts.  

Islamist Attacks on Western Freedom – What Can Be Done?

Last week’s killings in Paris were termed terror attacks.  Yet apparently they were also something else – primarily revenge murders.

The Charlie Hebdo magazine was singled out as a target because it had been very blatant in its defamation – from a Muslim perspective – of the Prophet Mohammed.  One of the attackers was heard to say, after the slayings, “we revenged the honor of the Prophet Mohammed”. 

Noteworthy in the attribution was that there was not also a warning that the same fate would await others also being disrespectful to the Prophet. 

Yet whatever the motivation for the murders, they’ve certainly been viewed by most as acts of terrorism designed to intimidate those inclined to exercise free speech at the expense of Muslim sensibilities.  And judging by the reluctance of some in the media (the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post excepted) to reproduce the “offending” cartoons, they’ve been successful.

But there has been a strong showing of defiance, as well, with many around the world demonstrating their solidarity with the French.  The French government claims that the nation will not be intimidated.  And the surviving staff of the previously small circulation satiric magazine promises that its next issue will have a one million press run.

However, few suggest that anything can be done to thwart other attacks other than better intelligence and intensified anti-terrorist strikes.

There is an implicit assumption in these approaches which, I think, is false.  And that is that the enemy can’t be dissuaded from resorting to the killings and terrorist activities.  But they can be.

Take the Islamists at their word.  They do, indeed, hate the West and the U.S. in particular (the “great satan”) and are especially incensed and motivated by any ridiculing of Mohammed.

However, they might be dissuaded by the reactions to their revenge killings if the result is an increase, not a decrease, in the mockery of the Prophet.

Consider the recent parallel of North Korea cyber attacks and threats against the movie The Interview.  The result was a much larger audience.  I realize an increase of what will likely be perceived as an antagonism to Muslim beliefs will also offend non-terrorist followers of the Prophet.  But that consequence may be unavoidable if assaults on practitioners of freedom are to be discouraged.

It’s simple to say, as Ralph Peters did on Fox News recently, that we need to kill more terrorists.  Of course, that is an appropriate objective.  But the risk of dying is not a disincentive for many terrorists – the allure of martyrdom is, in fact, a magnet for the followers of radical Islam.

Our policies and practices must make clear to such enemies that their killings in defense of Mohammed are counter-productive.  They’ll only lead to more “slander” of the Prophet.  Maybe then such revenge terrorism will stop.

Everyone’s Against Torture, Right?

Senate Democrats recently issued a scathing report condemning what is claimed to be the use of torture by the CIA during the hunt of Osama Bin Laden and the concurrent attacks on Al Qaeda.

Various former CIA officials, including current Director Michael Hayden,  jumped to the Agency’s defense, citing the approval of its interrogation techniques by President Bush’s White House and Congressional leaders of both parties during the time they were used. 

CIA representatives claimed that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and humiliation did not constitute torture.  They were merely methods of “enhanced interrogation”. 

Apparently, no one favors torture under any circumstance, from conservatives like Wall Street Journalist Peggy Noonan and Senator Lindsay Graham to any liberal you wish to name.   To quote Senator John McCain, a victim of torture in North Vietnamese prisons, “The use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies possess basic human rights.”

Mrs. Noonan put the sentiment somewhat differently.  “Torture is not like us.  It’s not part of the American DNA.  We think of ourselves as better than that because we’re better than that.”

Self-righteous words all – and foolishly naïve.  Those uttering them believe them, I’m sure.  But only if they don’t subject those words to hard-headed examination.  “The end never justifies the means” has the same superficial appeal but fails to account for real world choices [a boy stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation is to be morally condemned?].  One must weigh means versus ends in particular circumstances.  Thus, while committing theft to survive is most likely morally excused, killing to obtain food is unlikely to be justifiable. 

Should the same analysis be applied to torture, as well?

Torture as a term is not subject to one definition.  It can mean sadism (inflicting pain is the purpose), terror objectives (intimidation) and coercion to force a disclosure of information.  Obviously, only the last definition is applicable to this discussion.  Sadism is an end, not a means, and even the most hostile critics have not accused the CIA of engaging in terroristic activities. 

A formal dictionary definition states that torture is an “act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty”.

As so defined, did some of the tactics by the CIA against Al Qaeda qualify as torture?  Probably.  Yet the term has such negative historical connotations that those employing it dare not name their activities as such.  Hence we hear such expressions as “enhanced interrogation”. 

Can the use of torture to obtain information be justified?  I suggest that a means versus ends analysis appropriately applies.  The proper questions are (1) whether torture worked, and (2) whether their use was morally justified by the end.

If the first question generates a “no”, the second question becomes moot. 

The CIA, however, reports that the interrogation tactics did work.  If so, can anyone responsible for the safety of Americans forbid their use?

But if torture succeeded, and there were no other practical options to the acquire the information desired, was there really any other choice in the face of Al Qaeda’s already established 9/11 capability to kill massive numbers of Americans? 

Is it a compromise of one’s principles to weigh ends versus means?  Yes, but that’s ok.

The world is not perfect where the choice is between pure white and evil black.  Rather, shades do matter.  Choosing to survive can involve unpleasant alternatives, but making realistic choices to survive hardly makes us like our foes.  Refusing to account for what serves the interests of survival is suicidal.  I rather doubt that Americans desire to be martyrs to moral perfection.

It would certainly be nice to live in Utopia where coercing information from enemies would be unnecessary since, in Utopia, there would be no enemies. 

That’s not the world we live in.