Morning Fog

Police Surveillance Tools

Yesterday, USAToday featured a splashy story about police surveillance tools that can "see" into buildings to determine who is inside and where.  It sounds like a very useful thing to me, and we have probably all heard of cases in which such technology was used to locate hostages, or figure out how many bad guys with weapons might be lurking inside before the G-men storm the doors.  

But apparently the ACLU and others are again ready to criticize.  I think I understand the "pure" position the critics are coming from, yet - as with freedom of speech or the right to bear arms - there is, and cannot be, any pure position in the real world.  We need to judge the damage that such technology might do to the civil rights of a very limited number of total innocents against the possibility of injury or death to hostages or to law enforcement officers, or indeed to we citizens in general, if criminals or terrorists can't be apprehended.   And especially in the case of hostages, I would think, we shouldn't be waiting for a judge to approve the use of these surveillance tools.

The greater danger to civil liberties is not from the occasional and usually legitimate use of technology by police attempting to perform their duties, but from our laissez-faire attitude about letting potentially invasive or dangerous technology be sold to private citizens.  We've done so with guns, we've done so with lasers and drones; and no doubt the surveillance technologies now being questioned are also being offered, without control, to any Tom, Dick, or Harriet who wants to buy one.

Let's let the ACLU put all its expensive legal talent to work on this issue instead.

Stolen Valor

Over the holidays there was a flurry of reports about impostors who donned military uniform, but never served in the armed forces, being caught out and confronted by real veterans.

Such masqueraders seem, in these cases, to have been motivated mainly by the desire to capitalize on special discounts offered to military members.  In different times and eras, there have also been those who claimed military service no so much just to get a deal at Wal-Mart, as to fluff up their credentials (a fake navy veteran giving courses in personal security/protection for example) or just to make up for something they wished they had done, but hadn't.

Thus some legislators have grasped at a straw and are pushing for a special law against "Stolen Valor."   Typical Congressional posturing, I say.

I don't think we need another special law directed specifically to the military.  Posing as something you're not may range from a harmless prank to something that endangers others, but I would argue the military pretenders are mainly in the former category.  In a legal sense, who is damaged?   If you dress up as a sailor to get 10% off on a new TV, that's commercial fraud and nothing more.  Merchants could easily stop it if they wanted by demanding to see a valid military ID or DD214.  I haven't yet seen the case where someone put on a fake military uniform in order to lead a platoon into combat, thus endangering the lives of others.

If serious cases do develop, they can be dealt with by laws that exist already, and in proportion to their harmful impact.  Should those who spuriously claim military service be considered more seriously than others who falsely represent themselves as doctors, police, Ph.D.'s, or federal officials?  Personally, I would say not. 

If you're a real, live, military service member, maybe you object to this approach.  But I've been there too - a VietNam vet - and I am bothered by two ideas:  First, that valor is something everybody in uniform has, and second, that if they have it, it can be stolen.  Neither is true. 

Recent statistics suggest that the ratio of combat troops to support personnel is as high as 1 to 10; and even though we can all agree that the "support" contingent is performing just as essential a role as the fighters, they don't very often get the opportunity to display "valor," which is something quite different.  Even being clearly embroiled in a combat zone isn't in and of itself "valorous" -- my own experience in Vietnam is a suitable example of that.

Is it possible thaat those who want to legislate a "Stolen Valor" law really are seeking to steal a little valor themselves?  By riding the "support our military" bandwagon, they hope a little valor will rub off on them, even if only a few of them have experienced the concept firsthand. 

 

Riffs On The Release Of "Selma" (The Movie)

Our media have wrapped "Selma," the new movie about the famous civil rights march, due to be released soon, in controversy about its historical accuracy.  In writing briefly about that topic yesterday, though, I found that it brought to mind some other thoughts of varying depth.

Obviously the film must be timed to coincide with the observance of Martin Luther King Day, observed this year on January 19.  It was about that time, now six years ago, that I started Morning Fog.  Time flies - we all know that, so so what?

Well, it caused me to think back to January 2009, when we were inaugurating our first African-American President - a great day in a symbolic way, even if many might argue that his Presidency has been flawed (time will tell).   On the other hand, the intervening years seem to confirm my view then that the election of Obama neither signaled that racism had finally been overcome, nor promised significant progress in that regard.

There may be a lesson there in the "Selma" story.  In the movie (reportedly) Johnson and King have different views about the strategy and timing for action on a mission they both considered critical.  Proponents argue that one man or the other was more important to the civil rights achievement of the 1960s, but it's evident, I think, that both were crucial. 

Yet at the risk of arousing the ire of those who despise the idea that progress on equality for blacks too often is shown being delivered by whites, I also contend that Johnson was the critical factor when it came to legislation.  The Civil Rights Act could not have happened without him, because in addition to his political savvy and deep knowledge of how the Senate worked, he was a fully credentialed "Democratic Southerner" to whom the other ancient Jim Crow southerners would, at least, listen.  So: Nixon the rock-ribbed Republican forged our "opening to China;" Johnson was able to father the Civil Rights Act; but sadly, Obama is/was not the guy to pry open more doors on race. 

Another passing thought:  In discussing the film and the surrounding controversy, many journalists have revived the (to me) misleading idea that Johnson was "discredited" in his day because of Vietnam and is only recently coming to be recognized for his other contributions.  Well, perhaps that is true, yet personally, I have viewed him pretty much since the day he left office as one of, if not the, best Presidents in our twentieth-century history - not because of something he didn't accomplish (ending another President's war) but because of what he did get done. 

Pouting Police

Yesterday was the funeral service of NYPD Detective Liu, the second of the two who were murdered just a couple of weeks ago, just because they were cops.  The shootings were senseless and tragic.  And I've always said that the police are much underrated and underappreciated; the risks they take, the dangers they are constantly faced with, are far from commensurate to the respect or the pay they get.

Nevertheless, I do think those who choose to turn their backs on the Mayor at these events are making a mistake.  First, because the Mayor is responsible to the voters, and therefore to public opinion.  Not to the police!  He should of course support his people (the NYPD) where possible, yet some of the problems recently brought to light can't be defended by any elected official. 

Second, because the policemen's willingness to "act out," fight their bureaucratic battles in public, and blame the mayor makes them look not just childish, but unprofessional and selfish; it makes it appear they are more concerned with defending themselves than honoring those who died.  Worst, an emotional response like this reinforces the impression that they may react emotionally, rather than measuredly, under pressure, and this is the very thing that has raised questions in the first place.

In short:  NYPD, suck it up.  Like professionals in service in other walks of life, you should understand that it's not about you.  Your reaction (if you're among the back-turners) obscures what you stand for (or should stand for).