Not a convincing case: The argument against Eric Holder

I was somewhat surprised last week when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Department of Justice was going to put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four of his co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks on trial in federal court. I had presumed they would be tried in a military tribunal and quickly executed.

Not surprisingly, all of the usual right-wing nut-jobs (RWNJs) have jumped out of their high-chairs to call for Holder's head for this decision. Yet if you really examine what the RWNJs have to say against a trial in federal court, the critique does not hold up to scrutiny.

Here, for example, is former GW Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson:

America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods, to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power, to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal, and to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York City. Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is "hardened" against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.

I don't buy any of that. Neither does Steven Simon, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the co-author of “The Age of Sacred Terror” and “The Next Attack.”

Mr. Simon, in the New York Times, addressed these charges one at a time:

1. America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods.

Simon says no:

Our prosecutors are certain that there is enough unclassified evidence to make their case. Moreover, the most prized intelligence is recent, specific and actionable. Al Qaeda today is most concerned with discovering when and where the next drone missile attack will take place in Pakistan, information not likely to be disclosed during a trial about a conspiracy hatched more than a decade ago.

2. America will be subjected to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power.

Simon says no:

The truth is, if the trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. First, federal courts do not permit TV cameras in the courtroom, so the opportunity for “real time” jihadist propagandizing won’t exist. And while defendants and their lawyers can question witnesses, they cannot make speeches; judges are kings in this domain and can quash irrelevant oratory. Some point out that in earlier terrorism trials, like those of the plotters of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the defendants did ramble at length. True, but does anyone who fears a circus now remember a single word from those earlier trials? The real propaganda event is likely to unfold very differently. Instead of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed making his case, we will see the full measure of the horror of 9/11 outlined to the world in a way that only methodical trials can accomplish. Historically, the public exposure of state-sponsored mass murder or terrorism through a transparent judicial process has strengthened the forces of good and undercut the extremists. The Nuremberg trials were a classic case. And nothing more effectively alerted the world to the danger of genocide than Israel’s prosecution in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who engineered the Holocaust.

3. America will be subjected to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal.

Gerson says "possibility," but doesn't say how likely that possibility is. So his statement could be true if there is a 0.001% chance of it happening. Insofar as a trial in federal court is likely to result in an acquittal, Simon says no:

That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a “not guilty” verdict seems unwarranted.

I would add this: But for the fact that even loathsome assholes have the right to a fair trial in our country, we would not have a country worthy of pride. If the argument is that there should be no chance of acquittal, then there is no reason to have a trial at all.

4. America will be subjected to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York City.

Increased compared with what alternative? Already the crazed Muslim fanatics want to attack New York or anywhere else they can murder "infidels." This trial won't change that.

Steven Simon argues that compared with a secret military tribunal, a trial in federal court will do the least to inspire more attacks against us:

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alternatives — indefinite incarceration without trial, or a military tribunal closed to the public followed by execution — are far more likely to inspire militant recruits. And highlighting the transparency in our judicial process would strengthen America’s reputation just as cracks are beginning to appear in the jihadist base. ... Polling since 2001 has shown that in most Muslim-majority countries, tolerance for terrorism and support for Al Qaeda is gradually eroding. It is strongly in our interest to reinforce these trends by underscoring the terrorists’ killings of civilians and our own commitment to the rule of law.

In the National Review Andy McCarthy makes a different case against the trial in federal court:

If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.

McCarthy could be right to say that is not how you (normally) treat wartime enemies, even if we have decided they are not prisoners of war. However, it is not clear why McCarthy thinks granting these defendants a federal trial is harmful to our war effort. He doesn't say he thinks they will get away with their crimes because of this decision by the AG. (He actually says, "I'm also very confident that KSM and the others will be convicted.") He doesn't argue this trial will lead to more attacks, will compromise our intelligence sources and methods or will turn the defendants into stars or beloved martyrs.

The two primary reasons I thought these criminals would be tried in military tribunals were 1) that a military tribunal would be faster; and 2) that it would be impossible to marshall an effective case in federal court because of the problem of admitting evidence.

The second reason seems to have been shot down. Even most RWNJs admit as much. And the first, as I understand it, is untrue because the military itself cannot adequately get its tribunals in order. That is a primary reason why there are still many prisoners at Gitmo: the military's court system is terribly slow, too.

Housing Bubble

There are some religions we should be prejudiced against

Perhaps because I believe at the core of every religion there is an incredible myth -- some sort of god(s) created human beings and that omnipotent god controls the destiny of human beings and rules over an afterlife -- I have little reason to belittle one faith more than another. That is, when they are measured by reason, science and history, I think they are all unbelievable. I don't care whether you believe in Joseph Smith's gold tablets or Mother Mary's virginity, it's all fairy tales to me. I don't have a favorite in the Sunni vs. Shiite schism, because I find Sunniism as nonsensical as Shiitism.

People who really believe in the teachings of their chosen religion, whether they want to admit it or not, are by definition biased against the beliefs of the other religions. They may believe in the rights of other religions. However, they chose one faith because they think the others got it wrong, while theirs got it right.

By contrast, I believe all of them -- at the core level -- got it wrong.

Yet I don't believe there is no good to be had in some religious beliefs or that everything they teach is wrong or without value. I have no quarrel with common sense values of being kind to your neighbors, not stealing and not bearing false witness. I am, moreover, a great admirer of groups like the Salvation Army and Alcoholics Anonymous, who take in drunks and drug addicts and other lost souls and give them a much less toxic addiction to replace drugs or alcohol. Sure, people who try to proselytize are annoying. But I'd much rather drive on a highway full of annoying Born Agains than on one with intoxicated drunks. Former drug addicts who talk up the Bible are people who, but for their "salvation," would be robbing banks and liquor stores to feed their toxic habits. There is nothing but good to be said for the religious people who feed the hungry and house the homeless.

While I believe all religions are based on mythology, I don't view every religion as being equal. That is, I do have some religious prejudice.

If a religion preaches hatred and stirs its followers to commit violence or to beat their children or instructs their men to restrict the liberty of their women, that is a worse religion than most. If a religion is set up as some kind of con game designed to get sex or money in the hands of the few who control it, that religion is worse than most. If a religion condones criminality in the name of advancing the cause of their god, that is a religion which is worse than most.

That brings me to the tragic events this week at Fort Hood in Texas, the murder of 13 people and the wounding of many more by an Army major who appears to have been motivated to commit his crime to advance his religious beliefs. Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly was "a devout Muslim" who had spoken with admiration of Islamic suicide bombers and who reportedly shouted "God is great" in Arabic before he unloaded his weapons on his fellow soldiers.

It's possible that his religious training had nothing to do with his crimes. There have literally been hundreds of other such mass murders in the United States and almost none of them were done by Muslim fanatics or by a person who was taught by his religion that this crime was justified. It is not impossible to believe that Major Hasan was simply a lunatic, a man who had lost touch with reality (much like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer). If so, his gloss of Islamic extremism only serves to distort the picture.



I am willing to wait to pass judgment on Dr. Hasan the individual. If it turns out that -- like with Mr. Cho -- there was ample evidence that he was psychotic and had lost touch with reality, then the blame for his crime should fall on those who did not restrain him before it was too late. Psychotics don't hide their craziness. Everyone who is around them knows they are nuts. People in their circle hear the crazy things they say and think.

So far, however, I have not heard or read a single report which quotes any associates of Hasan as saying he was delusional. But it's possible he was and those reports simply have not yet come out.

Some of his family members have said he was upset with having to go to Afghanistan and perhaps his pending deployment made him "snap." To that I say: Bogus! Snapping is getting so upset you ball up your fist and punch a wall or a door or the poor chap who happens to be right next to you when you lose it. Snapping is not loading up on ammunition for weeks and carrying loaded guns into a crowded hall where you know your unarmed and intended victims cannot stop you or escape. Hasan's crime was clearly planned in advance.

If his was not the act of a deranged psychotic but was an extension of his religious beliefs and the political ideology which goes with that religion, I think it is important to distinguish between his fanaticism and mainstream American Islam. We have literally millions of mainstream Muslims in the United States and virtually none of them are behaving the way Hasan behaved. Mainstream Muslims have not condoned Hasan's mass murder. Rather, they have condemned it and said it is opposite what their faith teaches.

Yet I don't think most Muslims in America (or elsewhere) are being fully honest about "what Islam teaches." The fact of the matter is that there is more than one type of "Islam." The radical beliefs of Nidal Malik Hasan are shared by millions of Muslims all over the world. No other major religion has such a large minority of fanatics as Islam has.

The idea that you can murder innocents to advance your cause is an idea held by most adherents of Wahhabiism, the brand of Islam which came originally from Saudi Arabia and has spread to lands far distant. It is no small sect.

The response to crimes committed "in the name of Islam" must be seen not as a reflection of all of Islam or most of Islam, but a very large and growing part of Islam. That is the brand of Islam which we are at war with the world over. Ultimately, ours is not "a war on terror," it is a "war on fanatical, Wahhabiist Islam."

For that war ever to be won, the vast majority of Muslims who don't agree with Wahhabiism have to join the fight against it. Up until now, most Muslims who are not themselves haters or fanatics have been silent about the crimes committed "in the name of Islam." They have essentially lied when they say, "that is not Islam." Of course it is Islam -- it's a significant sect within Islam, one only they can stop.

This excellent article in the Voice of America News explains this well:

The picture that emerges of Hasan is that of a deeply religious man embracing the most extreme forms of his faith, according to the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Zuhdi Jasser.

"It appears that he started to be driven towards the Wahhabi version of Islam, which is a very exclusivist, fundamentalist and militant version," said Jasser. "And their mentality is that the Islamic state takes preeminence over any other form of government - to impose the Islamic state by any means necessary."

Jasser, who says his family came to the United States from Syria in search of political and religious freedom, has a message for his fellow Muslim Americans.

"It is time for us to publicly debate imams that do believe that there should be a role for politics in the mosque because until we can separate mosque and state, the virus that infiltrates the minds of people like Hasan is going to continue," he said. "It only can be rooted out by an Islam that is at ease with liberty, freedom, and believes in American constitutional law."

I could not agree more strongly than I do with Mr. Jasser. There is no excuse left for mainstream American Muslims to not argue publicly against the extremist Muslims.



They also need to stand up and condemn groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which use Islam as an excuse to murder Jews and Israelis.

Jasser adds that the U.S. military must be more vigilant of service members who appear conflicted between their religious beliefs and their allegiance to the armed forces. He says Hasan gave clear indications of such a personal conflict and that it should not have been tolerated.

"We need to start looking at warning signs and not allowing political correctness to make us anesthetized to a radical political ideology that has within it a theological construct," said Jasser.

U.S. officials say that while Hasan's correspondence with a radical imam was tracked, the messages did not contain any statements of violent intent.

No violent intent? That is total nonsense. We are at war with radical Islam. Any U.S. soldier or civilian who is attracted by our enemy's cause needs to be considered a great danger.

Analysts note that many people come to the attention of U.S. authorities for a variety of reasons, many of which turn out to be benign. Identifying who will commit a heinous crime - and when and where it might occur - is difficult, if not impossible, according to former State Department intelligence analyst Terrell Arnold.

"You need to take from Fort Hood the basic lesson that you cannot actually predict these things," he said. "The basic problem (in predicting attacks) is life in an open society that has a high regard for individual liberties, and also life in a military community where people are very careful to avoid offending other members of the group by making charges they cannot substantiate in advance."

That is complete, politically correct nonsense. Mr. Arnold is an idiot if he believes what he is saying. You actually can predict some things. For instance, if someone is suffering from schizophrenia and believes others are out to kill him and he is collecting guns, you can predict he is a very dangerous person who should not be allowed to run his own affairs. If someone else is telling his fellow soldiers that suicide bombers are heroes and he is communicating with Wahhabi imams in Yemen, you can predict he is not fit for service in the U.S. Army.

Several Muslim religious leaders in the United States have condemned the Fort Hood attack. And much like they did after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many Muslim Americans say they fear becoming targets of suspicion and even hate.

Civil rights advocates warn against targeting and punishing the nation's Muslim population for the actions of one man. Vanita Gupta, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, says public outrage over the Fort Hood attack is justified. But she adds there is a danger.

". . . that we create policies and practices that result in deep suspicion of entire swaths of people in a very unfair and, frankly, un-American manner," said Gupta.

I agree with Ms. Gupta that we should not distrust Muslim Americans because of what Maj. Hasan did. However, we should distrust radical Muslim fanatics; and mainstream Muslims must do whatever they can to expose the radicals and argue publicly against their interpretation of Islam.

Richies and Dicks

Rapists should NEVER be released from prison

We have this idiotic system in which violent sex offenders must register with local authorities once they are released from prison in order to make it easier to keep a tab on them. Really? Would it not be A LOT EASIER to keep a tab on them if we never released them from prison in the first place?

Any man who would do what Anthony Sowell was convicted of doing in 1989 is not worth taking a chance on. He never should have been released. He was sentenced to 15 years, but he should have got life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

It began at 6 a.m. on July 22, 1989, when police showed up at a motel on Euclid and Lee roads in East Cleveland. The woman was waiting for her boyfriend, and she feared officers were going raid the motel.

Sowell was there, as well, and lured the woman to his car and told her that her boyfriend would want her to stay with Sowell until after the officers left. Sowell drove her to his home -- a third-floor apartment on Page Road in East Cleveland.

Once inside, Sowell threw her on his bed, choked her and repeatedly raped her.

When she tried to leave, Sowell tied her hands with a necktie, wrapped a belt around her feet and stuffed a rag in her mouth. He threw her on the bed and began pacing up and down the stairs.

He later came back into the room and fell asleep on the bed. The woman got her feet loose, spit out the rag and crawled out the window, onto the roof and screamed for help. She feared opening the squeaking door would wake Sowell.

"He told me that he was going to kill me, and I believed him," the woman told police.

Anthony Sowell did not kidnap, terrorize and rape his victim in 1989 because he had some grudge against her. He did that horrible deed because he is a psychopath, one who never should have been allowed out of his cage. Yet we sentenced him to 15 years behind bars, as if he would learn his lesson. Get real. Psychopaths don't learn lessons. They are irredeemable.

What was the result of our mistake in judgment about Anthony Sowell's nature? A lot more rapes and at least six murders.

The NY Daily News:

Cleveland Police were scrambling to identify the bodies of six women found in various stages of decomposition inside a convicted rapist's house of horrors over the weekend.

In a scenario ripped from "The Silence of the Lambs," Ohio ex-con Anthony Sowell allegedly strangled a series of women in his three-story house over a period of months - or even years.

Rotting bodies were found in upstairs bedrooms, the living room, a crawl space, a shallow grave in the backyard and another grave in the basement, police said.

The Sowell case not only demonstrates the insanity of letting convicted psychopaths back on the streets, it shows how incompetent so many of our police officers are.

The New York Times is reporting that "the police were notified repeatedly about violence there, but little was done. (A) neighbor ... said that about two weeks ago he found the rapist, Anthony Sowell, in the bushes alongside Mr. Sowell’s house naked and standing over a woman who was bloodied, beaten and naked. (He) said he called 911, and an ambulance soon took the woman away. But the police showed up two hours later and never interviewed him, Mr. Bess said."

None of that surprises me. A lot of police departments are filled with incompetent cops who are protected by their unions. Lawsuits make it too expensive to fire these boobs. And society suffers for it.

The Daily News:

"Not a pretty sight inside the home. I stood outside the home for about an hour and the stench from inside was overwhelming," said Cleveland Police spokesman Thomas Stacho.

Investigators were gathering DNA samples and dental records and combing through records of women reported missing since June 2005, when Sowell, 50, was freed after serving a 15-year prison term for choking and raping a woman.

Fearing the worst, some family members of two neighborhood women who went missing in April and June gathered in front of the house, joining reporters watching the police work.

A community vigil was being organized for Monday night.

All the dead women were black, and all died of strangulation, the coroner reported.

I wonder if this maniac had been white, as Garrido is, the reaction among his black neighbors would have been different. It's hard to say. It seems like any time a white criminal commits violence or other crimes against black victims, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do everything possible to stir up racial hatred. But in a case like this, even if the murderer/rapist had been white, the heinousness of the crime may have caused everyone to just be numb to the normal rabblerousing.

The bottom line with regard to the victimization of blacks: Almost all of it is done by other blacks. The same is true with whites or Hispanics. Most crimes committed against anyone of any racial or ethnic group are committed by members of that same group. However, because of our racial history in the U.S., too many blacks continue to pay too much attention to the rare instances where blacks are harmed by whites. They ought to focus their attention on their own; just as white people who are crime victims should largely be looking at other white people.

The Daily News:

Police went to Sowell's house in a dicey neighborhood of southeast Cleveland on Thursday to arrest him for a new sexual assault and serve a search warrant.

Sowell wasn't home, but the smell was so bad the officers headed for the trash-strewn upstairs where they discovered the carnage.

A tipster spotted Sowell walking near his home on Saturday and alerted police, who arrested him without incident.

If the the Phillip Garrido case did not prove to you that keeping a sex-offender registration system in place is a huge waste of money, the Anthony Sowell case should.

Sowell had faithfully met with his parole officer and filled out all his sex offender paperwork.

Neighbors knew something was off about Sowell, who smelled so terrible their eyes would water.

"He came into my store last week and reeked so bad, I had to open the front and back doors," convenience store owner Eli Tayeh told the Los Angeles Times.

"I asked why he stunk. He shrugged, bought his beer and walked out."

But people blamed backed up sewers or Ray's Sausage company, housed in an adjacent building.

"We kept away from him and he kept away from us," said neighbor Tamica Pierceton, 26. "We should have said something to someone. I wish I had."

UPDATE: The AP is now reporting that in addition to the six bodies already found at Mr. Sowell's house of horrors, four more corpses were discovered:

CLEVELAND – Remains of four more people were unearthed from the backyard of a rapist's home Tuesday, raising to 10 the number of bodies found in and near the house, as police also searched boarded-up homes in the neighborhood where residents complained for years of a stench that one even said "smelled like a dead body."

"It appears that this man had an insatiable appetite that he had to fill," police Chief Michael McGrath said.

Baseball: Time to put a clock on it

Bring the buses downtown

Bankruptcy changes: A bad bill

Impassioned father advocates reforms in mental health care

There was an interview published today in the Palo Alto Daily News with Pete Earley, the author of a new book called, "Crazy." He uses that word to describe our system in dealing with and treating mental illness.

Earley became intimately familiar with what he calls "America's mental health madness" after his son had a bipolar disorder breakdown during college — and ended up charged with a crime.

Just about anyone who has ever had a family member with severe mental illness knows just how stupid and heartless our system is. The result, very often, is tragic, as the story (I write about below) from Boston, today, demonstrates.

This snippet of the interview is spot on:

Q: How difficult is it to find help for a person with mental illness?

A: We know how to help most people with mental illnesses, but we simply are not doing it. Many of the solutions are cost-effective, and would save us money. Instead, we have a system that only responds when there is a crisis, and forces people into emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and jails and prisons — which are costly and ineffective.

Q: What reforms are needed?

A: We need to re-examine civil rights laws that require a person to become dangerous before we can help them. Involuntary commitment laws that require "imminent danger" ignore that a person can be very, very sick and harmless. This results in people who are psychotic roaming our streets, helpless. It also results in people becoming dangerous because they are not being treated.

We need to offer persons with severe mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, access to services that are based on their individual needs. For some it may mean access to jobs and housing, and for others, access to clubhouses and places where they can socialize. Along with affordable medications, these programs help a person recover and rejoin society. Some 20 percent of persons are not helped by medication and remain ill — even if they receive services. We must find a way to help these people live dignified lives and not abandon them on our streets.

Boston crazy man tries to murder his doctor

There was yet another story in the news today about a mentally ill person committing a heinous crime:

BOSTON – A man stabbed a doctor while being treated at a psychiatric office at a Boston medical building Tuesday and was fatally shot by an off-duty security guard who saw the attack, police said.

"During the course of the stabbing incident an off-duty security officer who was armed interceded. He produced a weapon and ordered the suspect to drop the knife. And when the suspect did not comply, he shot the suspect," said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis.

If we want to prevent crimes of this nature, we need to start taking care of the mentally ill. The largest aspect of taking care of them is to take the approach that they cannot be in charge of their own lives: that they need guardians to care for them; that they should not be warehoused in homeless shelters or left to fend for themselves on the streets; that they should not have the right to refuse to take medications; and if they are determined by psychiatrists to be dangerous to themselves or to others, they need to live in locked psychiatric hospitals.

While the unprovoked attack which took place in Boston could theoretically occur in a locked-up setting, it would have been harder for the stabber, Jay Carciero, to get ahold of a knife in a hospital.

It did Mr. Carciero no good to be "free." Now he's dead. He might have been helped had society taken charge of his care. But because of the ACLU (and really the lack of concern by just about all Americans), no one took charge of his affairs for him. Instead, we just waited until he nearly murdered a doctor and he was necessarily killed.

The fear of DNA by 'privacy advocates' is total nonsense

There was a fascinating story in today's San Francisco Chronicle about the use of DNA technology to solve a crime which took place 11 months ago in Berkeley, where a brutally violent man (involuntarily) left DNA behind at the scene of one of his attacks, an attempted carjacking, and his genetic markers were matched with his DNA sample in a database. When the two were put together, police knew he was the beast they had been looking for:

Paul Anthony McGruder, 52, was arrested at his home on the 5900 block of Camden Street in East Oakland. Police say McGruder pulled a gun on a woman in the parking lot of Whole Foods Market at 3000 Telegraph Ave. on Dec. 30 and ordered her into her car. Once she was inside, the woman screamed and the carjacker punched her in the face, said Officer Andrew Frankel, a police spokesman. The woman stabbed him in the neck with a pair of scissors, police said.

After she fended him off a la Johnny Depp, McGruder immediately went after more victims:

The man ran off and tried to carjack another woman, but failed in that attempt as well, Frankel said. Finally, he stole a man's 2008 Subaru and escaped, police said. McGruder is being held on suspicion of three counts of carjacking or attempted carjacking and one count of kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking.

If it were up to the ACLU, evildoers like Paul Anthony McGruder would be free to terrorize other innocents. This AOL story reports that the ACLU has filed suit to restrict the collection of DNA in California to only those serving time for very serious crimes.

Thanks to the passage of Proposition 69 in 2004, California now mandates the collection of DNA from anyone arrested in connection with a felony -- regardless of whether that person is later charged with a crime.

"I'm not sure the voters understood that they were empowering the police to take DNA from innocent people," said Peter Meier, an attorney at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, a San Francisco law firm that has partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit against the state.

Meier wants the court to restrict California's DNA collection mandate so that it only applies to convicted felons. He cites the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If serious crimes were only committed by people who have already been convicted of serious crimes, I wouldn't have a problem with the ACLU's position. However, the truth is that most murderers and rapists and carjackers, like Paul Anthony McGruder, have a long history of minor brushes with the law before they spend time in prison. Collecting their DNA when they are still low-level criminals will allow law enforcement to solve the crimes they commit down the road, protecting society from these predators. If they never graduate to rape and mayhem, they have nothing to worry about knowing their DNA is in a computer database.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported a story about a program in Orange County in which arrestees for minor crimes were being given the choice of having the charges dropped in exchange for submitting a DNA sample. The motivation of the DA's office in Orange County is twofold: first, to save money by not having to prosecute minor offense. That saves on lawyer time, court costs and keeps the jail free for serious offenders; and second, the DA wants to expand his DNA database -- in order to increase the chances law enforcement in Orange County will find a match when the crime being investigated is more serious:

"There'd be no necessity for a guilty plea, and a dismissal, or anything like that," Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said. "It's advantageous to the defense, and it's advantageous to us, because we're able to handle more cases with fewer resources." The DNA sample could act as a deterrent for potential criminals and be a useful investigative tool for law enforcement, Rackauckas told supervisors. The plan applies to people arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors, including petty theft, trespassing and low-level drug-possession felonies.

The story indicates that some cops don't like the idea of dropping charges on people they've arrested. Civil liberties advocates also object to this program, because it "would allow prosecutors to wrongly pressure people who have not been convicted of any crime to give the government a DNA sample."

I don't get that objection at all. What pressure? I don't see how the police having access to a sample of DNA or the DNA violates anybody's rights. DNA amounts to a series of letters and numbers. It's not like the cops are coming to my house and forcing me (or anyone else) to give them a sample of my blood.

Does the ACLU think someone is going to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit because he figures, "Well, them cops got my DNA. Might as well just go to prison for the next 15 years rather than defend myself"?

If it didn't cost money to collect and store DNA from every American and it weren't a hassle to do so -- it would be a waste of resources, for example, if everyone had to go down to a police station and submit blood or saliva for no reason other than to universalize the database -- I would have no objection to a more comprehensive database.

But the truth is, of course, that it does cost money and would be a hassle*. Because of that, and because 97 percent of people never will commit or be accused of committing any serious crimes -- the bad 3 percent commits all of the serious offenses -- a universal plan is not worth pursuing.

If the DNA database at least has samples from everyone arrested for crimes, most serious criminals will eventually make it into the DNA database, and that makes it safer for the rest of us and safer for any innocents who are wrongly accused of crimes in which DNA can prove their innocence.

-------

*The reason I object to our policy of non-discrimination at airport security checks is because they create a big hassle for people who not only are perfectly innocent, but who completely don't fit the profile of the terrorists we are supposedly trying to catch. If the TSA would simply profile -- focusing their efforts on people who look insane, Arabs, other Muslims and random males who are in the age category to commit violence -- they would weed out all of the trouble. No more than 10 percent of fliers fit the profile, yet 100 percent of people are forced to take off their shoes in security lines? That doesn't benefit anybody. Nor is there any gain to be had by prohibiting those of us who never would be jihadis from carrying on board, for example, a bottle of sunscreen. (I had to hand over a $12 container of SPF 45 in Maui, just because some crazy Muslims in Britain tried to blow up an airplane using a liquid explosive.)



TSA's policy of treating everyone the same means that my 87 year old mother, who is terribly hard of hearing, has Alzheimer's and weighs about 99 pounds, has to remove her shoes and get scanned for weapons every time she flies. You think a little senile 87 year old woman poses the same threat on an airplane as the three Islamic terrorists pictured above?

A fair question to ask is this: Would I feel the same were I an Arab who looked more less like the guys pictured above? The answer is, "I don't know, but probably no." The reason for objecting would not be that I would have to waste a lot more time being checked for guns, knives or explosives each time I get on a plane than I have to waste now. In fact, if the TNA discriminated and did not bother to check, recheck and hassle endlessly the 90 percent of fliers who don't fit the profile, then I, as an innocent Arab, would be processed much faster. However, the reason I wouldn't like a policy of discrimination is because no one likes to be singled out in that way. It's much less humiliating if 100 percent of fliers have to go through the same check system. So the question then for society is, recognizing this cost of humiliating a minority, is that humiliation cost higher than the cost of wasting our time and resources on the 90 percent who don't fit the profile? I think the answer to that is that the humiliation cost is much lower, but it's still a real cost, and thus we ought to profile. A follow-up question is, wouldn't profiling lead to terrorists changing tactics, using attackers who don't look like the men pictured above? The answer is, the profile is not just based on the person's looks. The profile includes place of origin, religious affiliation, behavior, and other factors that expert profilers can look for. That's the method Israel uses, and it has kept El-Al quite safe for decades. Hopefully, some time not too long from now, Muslims will not be associated with this horrific type of crime. I don't think Islam is inherently violent. No more than any other faith. But I think there is a very large subculture in a lot of Islamic countries which justifies criminal acts of the terrorist sort; and until that subculture is subdued by Muslims who object to violence, this profile will make sense.

UCLA madness: It's Va. Tech all over again

Fortunately, the homicidal maniac at UCLA, Damon Thompson, who tried to murder a fellow student a few days ago in an organic chemistry lab, slashing her in the throat with a knife, was unsuccessful in killing his victim. And even more fortunately, Thompson did not have a cache of guns, like Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech had when he slaughtered 32 innocents and wounded many others in April, 2007.

But the essential facts of this case are the same: The killer was a mental case who had lost touch with reality. Many who knew him thought he was out of his mind. A professor had reported him to UCLA authorities 10 months ago, telling them he was off his rocker. And the authorities did absolutely nothing.

What was the result of their inaction? Here is the L.A. Times:

Nothing so far points to a direct motive for what appeared to be an unprovoked knife attack in an organic chemistry lab class on Thursday afternoon. The 20-year-old victim was reported to be recovering Friday. Thompson is being held on $1-million bail on suspicion of attempted murder and is expected to be arraigned Tuesday.

Most of the blame for this incident belongs with UCLA administrators, who failed to remove a student from their campus they should have known was mentally ill and dangerous:

The UCLA media relations office released a terse statement after reports that Thompson sometimes behaved erratically, including keeping odd hours and sometimes making disconnected-sounding outbursts. "While Thompson was known to our Student Affairs Office prior to the incident, privacy laws preclude us from discussing it," the statement said.

However, in a broader sense, the blame is with all the rest of us and our legal system for our irrational approach when it comes to dealing with mentally ill adults. As a society, we pretend they are responsible for their actions and they have the right to all of the freedoms sane people have. And that on both counts is nuts.

By definition, mentally ill people are not responsible. They can't differentiate reality from imagination. They hear voices inside their heads and think someone is talking to them. They think people are out to get them. They invent crazy conspiracy theories to explain why everyone is against them. Some of them act out violently -- with no obvious motive -- because they have paranoid delusions.

Instead of taking care of the mentally ill for their own good and for society's benefit, we give them their "liberty." Very often, that means life on the streets or life in prison. They cannot hold a job. They don't understand the benefits of anti-psychotic medications. They ultimately either kill themselves or kill someone else. What we call freedom is total hell for the mentally ill and for their families which love them.

A student who had some interaction with Thompson in a UCLA dorm last school year described him as "an eccentric guy" who would wake up at 3 a.m. and start tidying up other people's possessions. This student, who asked not to be identified because of the circumstances of the case, said Thompson sometimes made statements that seemed to have little bearing on reality.

What we need to do is address the mentally ill like they are children: We need to protect them. We should not give them the option of taking prescribed medications. They can't decide what is in their best interests. They ought never be allowed to have weapons, especially guns. They should not be able to decide where they want to live: We should provide shelter for them. And if the very best psychiatric care cannot stop them from acting crazy, we need to keep them in a locked up mental hospital where they will receive proper care.

People like Damon Thompson, as horrific as his crime at UCLA was, don't belong incarcerated. Prisons are for punishing people who can understand why the act they committed was wrong. He has no sense of that reality. Thompson is clearly dangerous. He might become manageable at some point if he were on meds and he were monitored. Yet he should never again be fully free, on his own. If he can't be managed, then he needs to be locked up in a psychiatric hospital. But ideally, some day he will be cared for by a guardian, who can force him to see psychiatrists and to take medications and to manage his affairs, just like responsible adults manage the affairs of children.

Down goes the dollar -- at last

In this July 22, 2009 column, I wrote: "There is no doubt the price of goods and services we import has to rise; and the costs of our exports needs to fall. That means a much weaker dollar in the coming years."

Two and a half months have passed since I forecast the dollar's decline. This week, the fall began. Here is today's story in Forbes:

The dollar fell to a 14-month low against a basket of currencies, as positive news about the global recovery enticed speculators to test how much they can pressure the greenback.

Currency traders have their eye on the dollar's technical borderlines, anxiously waiting to see if the euro will punch through $1.485, and if the yen can fall to 87.50. It's getting close, as the euro rose to $1.481 Thursday, while the yen fell to 88.31.

The Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against a number of other currencies, fell by .8%, to 78.81. Yet, in the intensity of inter-day trading and the heated geopolitical and economic climate, it's easy to forget the dollar is sliding to its pre-crisis levels. Prior to July of 2008 the euro was on a multi-year march to $1.599, while the Australian dollar reached 97.93 cents.

For the United States, the short-run implication of a declining dollar should mean higher interest rates on our public debt. Why? Because foreign investors own much of our massive debt. They won't want to purchase our treasury notes if those notes are paying a negative real interest rate. And if the dollar is declining in value -- say by 5 percent -- and the notes are paying 4 percent in interest -- then the real interest rate is negative.

The major players in this will be the central banks in China, Japan and Russia, as well as major dollar investors from OPEC. China holds $800.5 billion in American government debt. Japan owns $724.5 billion in U.S. treasuries. And Russia, which has sold off some of its U.S. government bonds, still possesses $118.0 billion worth.

To me, the surprise is not that the dollar is falling. The surprise was that when the world economic crisis hit in 2008, largely a byproduct of the collapse of mortgage backed securities originated in the Unites States, that the dollar rose. It was seen as a flight to security. However, given our immense red ink, I don't see the dollar as a safe investment.

The move out of the dollar is understandable. The macro picture is improving, and the turmoil over the past year led investors to flock to the dollar as a safe-haven play.

Volatility in equities, commodities and fixed income markets have served to mask the dollar's weakness but now all that's propping up the dollar is the world's willingness to keep investing in it. China and other surplus producing countries (particularly in the middle east) stand to lose trillions should the dollar fall too far too fast. Exporting nations would also benefit from a stronger greenback though there's some evidence that the traditional exporting role of the emerging markets is being tested.

Before the crisis hit in 2008, our massive public debt plus our ever-increasing trade deficit suggested to me that the dollar had to fall. However, since the crisis, every policy pursued by the U.S. government has served to make the dollar much weaker. We have a much more severe federal debt, today, in the wake of Bush's bail out program, Obama's bail out and the stimulus package. The erosion of fiscal discipline in the United States will mean two related things in the future: consumer price inflation and a much weaker dollar.

The dollar is inherently weaker than it was before the crisis, as the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates to bottom-barrel levels, while the U.S. Treasury has taken on significant debt in an effort to save the financial system from collapse, as well as revive the economy. On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office reported the federal budget deficit reached a record $1.4 trillion, due to a drop in tax revenue, as well as the government's massive bailouts.

The weaker dollar will bring about big changes for the U.S. All commodities will cost American consumers a lot more money: food will be much more expensive; gasoline will sour in price; and things like foreign travel will become cost prohibitive. On the other hand, goods and services which we export will be cheaper to foreign buyers. We will export more cars, appliances, agriculture and raw materials. It will make more sense for films and TV shows to be produced in the U.S. in the years ahead than it does now.

A weak dollar by definition means a much lower standard of living. It would not surprise me to find 20 years from now that the median standard of living in the United States in 2020 is lower than it was in 2000.

Punishing the parents?

The Sacramento Bee reports today:

The parents of a Vacaville toddler who was accidentally shot to death by her older brother have been arrested. ... Investigators say the Shanahan's 2-year-old daughter, Ayana, was killed Sept. 23 when their 8-year-old son accidentally fired a handgun. ... Solano County Deputy District Attorney Jeff Kauffman says the parents are facing up 13 years in state prison if convicted.

I have thought in the past in cases like this that the parents, by losing a child in what is obviously a horrible tragedy for their family, have been punished enough by their own stupidity. However, I've changed my mind.

I think the Shanahans deserve to be prosecuted and to be held publicly accountable for leaving a loaded weapon with no safety lock in a place in their home accessible to their children. This needs to be a very public prosecution and needs to send a clear message to all of the other idiots who have unprotected guns in their homes*.

The question is what is the appropriate penalty in order to get that message out?

Thirteen years in state prison, the maximum possible, would send that message. However, it's very expensive to imprison anyone for that long; five years would do the job; and I think there is a better way for them and for society.

Were it up to me, I would give the Shanahans, upon conviction, a choice: either you serve 5 years in state prison and hand over all of your property to the state for an auction sale; or be shamed.

What does it mean to be shamed? The couple needs to go out in public, rain or shine, in prison garb for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 52 weeks. Any single day they fail to appear for 8 hours adds 1 week to the sentence of shame.

If they fail to fulfill their 8 hour daily obligation 10 times during the year of shame, they will have to immediately go to prison for five years with no chance of parole; and all of their worldly possessions will be sold at auction for the public benefit.



They need to go to shopping malls, the county fairgrounds, schools, major intersections, the post office and other highly trafficked locations in Solano County, under the guidance of the county sheriff. They need to carry large signs which say, "I let my children have access to my loaded gun. My son used it to kill my daughter. Don't be stupid like I was."

The Shanahans might get some sympathy from strangers who see them. That's fine. They deserve some sympathy. However, most importantly, they will as extensively as possible get the message out that leaving a loaded gun in your home and letting kids have access to it results in tragedy.

That is a far better outcome than time in prison.

----


*A parallel case is with parents who keep vicious dogs as pets and then allow those dogs to maul their children or the children or pets of their neighbors. For such idiots, I would apply the exact same punishment: five years in prison or one year of shame. Let the criminal decide.

John Riggins