Radley Balko at The Art of the Possible: Sept. 10, 7:00 p.m. EST
(posted by Jennifer Abel)
In a truly free country, Radley Balko’s career would be radically different. In today’s America, by contrast, here’s a partial sampling of what Balko’s done: helped bring down a corrupt Mississippi forensic examiner who imprisoned innocent people through testimony little better than they had at the Salem witch trials; turned the national spotlight onto the case of former death-row inmate Cory Maye, a black man sentenced to execution for defending himself against violent middle-of-the-night home intruders (who turned out to be an anti-drug SWAT team acting on a bad tip); and has done groundbreaking work showing how such cases are not isolated incidents, but part of a disturbing trend toward the overall militarization of American police. Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine and frequent contributor to their Hit and Run blog. He can also be found at his own blog, The Agitator. And for this evening, he accepted Mona’s invitation to join us here at the Art of the Possible to discuss his work and other topics. We’re going to try a new format tonight: instead of speaking to Radley in our chatroom, we’ll hold a live discussion on this post’s comment thread. Join us at 7 p.m. Eastern time.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
[...] With Radley Balko! September 10, 2008, 3:40 pm Filed under: civil liberties, media/culture Tonight, at AOTP. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack [...]
September 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I’m here!
September 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Apologies: I had to shove all the information into a single paragraph to fit it on the main page.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I’m here, too.
I signed up for an account, but it’s still asking me the spam question.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
[...] live-ish chat begins at the Art of the Possible in 10 minutes. Digg it | reddit | del.icio.us | [...]
September 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Jennifer: note that frequent refreshing of screen is necessary,
September 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Radley, sorry about that — try exiting and reentering, logging in anew.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Looks like we’re gonna have to do math each time….
Welcome Radley. I will admit that I’ve never heard of you until today. I’m furiously reading your stuff now.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Thanks, Alix. Glad to be here.
I have my calculator handy. There’s a reason I was a liberal arts major.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I hope there are lots of Sarah Palin questions!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Radley: please say what thou will about Palin!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Radley, you’ve often used the ironic title “Another Isolated Incident” for Hit and Run blog posts where you linked to obscure local news stories about SWAT-team drug-war mishaps. You were also the journalist who first broke the news that these incidents aren’t isolated after all. When and how did you first realize the problem of American police militarization?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
And what do you think about Sarah Palin?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mona — I should have bracketed that with sarcasm tags.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
RadleyL seriously, I’d like to know if you see any chance the tide is tuning agasint the drug”war” and it attendant travesties?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Who’s that?
heh.
I can’t stay long, I’m now in charge of picking up my partner. So if you want to forfeit on my question, that’s fine–I won’t be here in 10 min. to add anything.
But, I’m really interested in any comments on the police state cracking down on activists. As well as your ideas whether or not protests are even a worthy use of resources, knowing that the police will be there to shut us down.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Radley, you’ve often used the ironic title “Another Isolated Incident” for Hit and Run blog posts where you linked to obscure local news stories about SWAT-team drug-war mishaps. You were also the journalist who first broke the news that these incidents aren’t isolated after all. When and how did you first realize the problem of American police militarization?
I don’t know that I was the first journalist to note the frequency of these botched raids, I was probably the first to document them so exhaustively.
The “another isolated incident” line comes from back when I was doing more generalized drug war stuff as a policy analyst at Cato. Once every few weeks, I would read about another mistaken drug raid, and each time, some local law enforcement spokesman would explain how “this almost never happens,” or that, “this is an isolated incident — nothing to see, here.”
Well, you read about enough isolated incidents, and you start to suspect that perhaps they aren’t so isolated.
I decided at that point that it might be a good idea to start keeping track of them. That eventually led to the “Overkill paper I wrote for Cato, and the accompanying Google Maps application.
http://www.cato.org/raidmaps
September 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I’ll be back, hopefully in time.
Tell us all!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Radley seriously, I’d like to know if you see any chance the tide is tuning agasint the drug”war” and it attendant travesties?
I see public opinion shifting on marijuana, certainly. And I’ve found that most people are amenable to my position on police militarization.
The problem on the former is that Congress is still way behind public opinion. And while I think most of America thinks the war on pot is silly and counter-productive, that issue by itself isn’t likely to determine many votes. People vote for candidates based on other issues, and unfortunately, both the major parties are pretty resolutely pro-drug war. Until and if they start to pay a political price for that, I don’t see there being much movement.
On the militarization issue, I think more people just need to be made aware of what’s going on. I’ve come across very few people who aren’t law enforcement who think it’s a good idea to kick down doors for nonviolent drug offenses, or who support the idea of the local police department tooling around in a tank or an APC.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
speaking of ‘another isolated incident’- Why isn’t Ryan Frederick getting the air time that the mayor’s getting?
both involve middle class white people, trumped up warrants, serious physical damage… and marijuana!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Radley-
First I want to say I enjoy the agitator as well as your column’s for Fox News. In particular your sets of questions for Obama and McCain were superb (too bad they will never be asked). On to my question:
The acquittal of Sean Bell’s murderers by a bench trial in April got me thinking: while we are guaranteed the right to jury, we are not guaranteed the right to a bench trial. The idea that a police officer would be investigated, prosecuted, and judged, all by government employees who rely on the same police department for protection, is surely a conflict of interest.
Would you speak about this, civilian oversight, and any other method which might reign in corruption and introduce accountability?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Yes, can you see a day when it would not be political suicide to advocate decriminalization and a regulatory scheme among Congresscritters?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
…but again, it would take a gutsy politician to come out against giving police officers more armor, higher-powered weapons, and more leeway to fight the drug war.
But to give you on example of how this stuff plays out politically, Ive talked to some folks in the drug reform movement about changes we might make to rein in SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics. One very good idea is to remove the qualified immunity we give to cops in these cases. If they break down the door of innocent family, they should be liable for the harm they cause–just as anyone else would be liable for mistakes made on the job.
I’ve been told the idea will never fly. The GOP is too law-and-order to consider anything like that. And the Democrats are too beholden to the police unions.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
On the militarization issue, I think more people just need to be made aware of what’s going on. I’ve come across very few people who aren’t law enforcement who think it’s a good idea to kick down doors for nonviolent drug offenses, or who support the idea of the local police department tooling around in a tank or an APC.
It’s odd, especially in light of all the ground you’ve broken here, that despite the ever-growing frequency of (for example) cops-gone-wild videos on YouTube and elsewhere throughout the Web, the media still doesn’t pay much attention to the issue. Seems odd; I’d think that if nothing else, sensationalism alone would warrant more attention paid to things like police murdering elderly grandmothers and then planting drugs on her corpse, as you reported happened to Kathryn Johnston in Georgia a few months back.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Radley, did you pay much attention to the police response to protesters at the Denver and St Paul conventions?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Jennifer, most of the cop shows on cable show them as heroes.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
speaking of ‘another isolated incident’- Why isn’t Ryan Frederick getting the air time that the mayor’s getting?
both involve middle class white people, trumped up warrants, serious physical damage… and marijuana!
Because Frederick isn’t an elected official, he killed a cop, and he actually had a small amount of marijuana in the house.
That said, I think the Frederick case may yet become very big news. There are some serious questions about how the police used their confidential informant in that case, and how they may be using them in other cases.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Yes, can you see a day when it would not be political suicide to advocate decriminalization and a regulatory scheme among Congresscritters?
Sadly, no. Shrinking government is almost never a politically popular thing to do. And the number of people and organizatons–public and private–who benefit from the drug war are far more powerful than the people who get screwed by it.
I think it’s possible to win some important victories on the margins. And I think there’s a longshot chance that under the right circumstances, at least marijuana enforcement could be devolved to the states.
But I’m far too cynical to think we’ll ever stop fighting the drug war.
Which I guess at least means I have job security.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
You also played a pivotal role in getting Steven Hayne disqualified from participating in any more forensic examinations in Mississippi. Care to say anything about that?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Radley,
I think one of the main sources leading to unaccountability of politicians, such as them not responding to public opinion against the drug war is the voting system used in America.
By using the first past the post system, instead of a more representative and less tactical system like single transferable vote, voters are forced into a false choice between republicans and democrats. They are too scared to vote for any third party with whom their views may be more closely aligned, and who could produce real change.
Do you think this is an important issue? Is there any hope for it to change?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Radley,
I’ve been reading your site for over a year now, the work you are doing is absolutely fantastic, keep it up.
The Agitator and Reason seem to be full of good ideas, but I just don’t see how we get any of them accomplished. What actual progress, if any, do you think we can make on criminal justice issues and other liberty issues in say the next 20 years?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Do you have any good news for us, Radley? Like real law enforcement reforms taking place somewhere?
I dunno, call it a “new professionalism”…
September 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Radley: What is the status of Cory Maye right now? He’s off death row, but is there any real chance of his beeing freed?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It’s odd, especially in light of all the ground you’ve broken here, that despite the ever-growing frequency of (for example) cops-gone-wild videos on YouTube and elsewhere throughout the Web, the media still doesn’t pay much attention to the issue. Seems odd; I’d think that if nothing else, sensationalism alone would warrant more attention paid to things like police murdering elderly grandmothers and then planting drugs on her corpse, as you reported happened to Kathryn Johnston in Georgia a few months back.
I think the problem is that the media tends to isolate these incidents, and has trouble looking at the bigger picture — that these continuing mistakes and tragedies are all being caused by bad policy, bad incentives, and a lack of transparency and accountability in our police departments.
They look at Johnston, Alberta Spruill, Tarika Wison, Cheye Calvo, etc. as individual tragedies. There’s a real disconnect when it comes to taking a step back and asking, “What’s going on here?”
I remember someone in Cato’s media department telling me about a conversation they’d had with an editor at a national newspaper while trying to pitch them to write a story about my “Overkill” paper.
The editor was very impressed, but admitted that he was reluctant to run a story because the research I’d done was, “something we should have done.”
Well do it!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Do you believe there is a chance an Obama administration would end the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California?
Also, at what level do you think the drug war is best fought at: local, state, or federal?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The editor was very impressed, but admitted that he was reluctant to run a story because the research I’d done was, “something we should have done.”
Wow. So if a story didn’t break in-house, they’d rather not cover it at all? How petty.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Radley, did you pay much attention to the police response to protesters at the Denver and St Paul conventions?
I read Glenn Greenwald’s and Linsay Beyerstein’s (sp?) terrific reporting.
I was on vacation for two weeks right smack in the middle of the conventions, so I regret that I didn’t get to cover the police response to the protests more closely.
But from what I’ve read, it was pretty appalling. I’ve been warning for several years now that it’s only a matter of time before they start using SWAT tactics on people suspected of white collar crimes and political crimes. We seem to be there now.
I hate to use the overused term “police state.” But what happened in St. Paul was truly frightening.
Even if some of the protesters were planning mayhem (and it’s clear some were), you don’t use preventative blanket military-style tactics, arrest people without probable cause, and detain journalists and photographers. This isn’t Beijing.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Radley, in all seriousness, aside from Troopergate and the famous “worried about reading them their rights” passage in the convention speech, have you discerned any particular pattern in Palin’s attitudes toward law enforcement and civil liberties issues from her career in Wassilla and Juneau?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I agree that part of the problem is the tendency to see these events as isolated incidents given the probably thousands of police departments nationwide.
However, apropos of Alice’s Restaurant (”all kinds of cop equipment hanging around the station house…,” I think the growth of local SWAT teams with all the riot gear etc. tends to encourage police departments to, well, play with their toys more often than the situation actually warrants.
Any comment? Also, any data on the cost of all these SWAT teams and how much the feds, justified by the war on drugs, are both encouraging this behavior and providing the hardware?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
You also played a pivotal role in getting Steven Hayne disqualified from participating in any more forensic examinations in Mississippi. Care to say anything about that?
I’ve been surprised by the utter lack of shame in Mississippi. Perhaps I shouldn’t be. But when forensics frauds have been exposed in other states, state officials have acknowledged the problem, then taken steps to thoroughly investigate the extent of the damage that person caused, including going back to review old cases.
Every step of the way, Mississippi officials have done the bare minimum they feel they can get away with to make this all go away.
It isn’t going to go away, though. The Innocence Project has dozens more cases tainted by Hayne’s testimony coming down the pike.
I have quite a bit more reporting to do, too.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I think one of the main sources leading to unaccountability of politicians, such as them not responding to public opinion against the drug war is the voting system used in America.
By using the first past the post system, instead of a more representative and less tactical system like single transferable vote, voters are forced into a false choice between republicans and democrats. They are too scared to vote for any third party with whom their views may be more closely aligned, and who could produce real change.
Do you think this is an important issue? Is there any hope for it to change?
I haven’t read enough about alternative voting systems to have an intelligent opinion on them.
But my gut answers to your questions are, respectively, yes and no.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Oh damn. I spaced out on something else and lost track of the time. Am I too late?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Do you get to take on any project you want to? Are there any stories you would really like to research but haven’t been able to?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The Agitator and Reason seem to be full of good ideas, but I just don’t see how we get any of them accomplished. What actual progress, if any, do you think we can make on criminal justice issues and other liberty issues in say the next 20 years?
and…
Do you have any good news for us, Radley? Like real law enforcement reforms taking place somewhere?
I’ll answer both of these at once.
I do think there’s some general concern and public debate bubbling up over our exploding prison population. That’s a good thing.
Many states are also now looking more toward drug courts and treatment than mandatory incarceration. That’s not ideal (and they’re only doing it because they can’t afford to keep tossing people in jail cells), but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
The successes of the Innocence Project I think have also caused much of the country to look at our criminal justice system much more skeptically. That’s a positive development.
So I do think the public opinion pendulum may be finally swinging back a bit from the “get tough, tougher, and toughest” on crime insanity that’s dominated American politics since Nixon.
We’ve also had a few minor policy successes. Marijuana has been decriminalized in about a dozen states and many more cities. Congress rolled back the crack-powder cocaine disparity. At least one of the two major party tickets has finally agreed to end the federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
In the grand scheme of things, these are tiny victories. But the questioners were looking for bright spots.
There are a few.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
What is the status of Cory Maye right now? He’s off death row, but is there any real chance of his beeing freed?
He’s in the early stages of his appeal to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
At risk of being overly optimistic (never a good idea in my line of work!), I do think at some point, Cory Maye will get a new trial. I just can’t see five separate courts (which is what it would take for him to exhaust his appeals with no relief) looking at the facts of his case and believing he got a fair shake.
And given that he now has excellent legal representation, and that a new trial would likely be held in Jefferson-Davis County, I think he’d have a better than even shot at an acquittal. At least a hung jury.
I hope I didn’t just jinx him.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Libby: Radley is here until 8:30 Eastern No worries!
September 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Do you believe there is a chance an Obama administration would end the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California?
Also, at what level do you think the drug war is best fought at: local, state, or federal?
Obama has promised to end the raids. I guess we’ll see, should he get elected.
I’m not really sure how to answer your second question. I would prefer it not be fought at any level. But if we must have a drug war, I’d prefer that states and localities be given the leeway to experiment, and enforce their own laws in a way that reflects their community mores and values.
For most of our history law enforcement has been a local concern. It’s only relatively recently that we’ve seen this mass federalization of crime. It’s troubling.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Radley: See, the federalization of drug “crime” occurred because all the right-wingers know it is among Congress’s enumerated powers. /sarcasm See Scalia, Antonin.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Radley, about the issue of dogs. The SWAT team tragedy is mostly human, but damn, these fops kill dogs all the time. What is up with that? Can’t they just demand the canine be locked in a room?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hey Radley. First of all, thanks for all you do. Now that I’ve caught up on the thread, I’d like to join Jim Henley in his question. I’d like to hear your take on Palin’s relative to civil liberties and law enforcement. I saw she squashed a move to close bars earlier which I believe was favored by the LEOs. I haven’t seen much else except the book banning.
And if there’s time, I’d be interested in knowing where you stand on voting in this cycle. Meaning are you endorsing a candidate?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Radley, in all seriousness, aside from Troopergate and the famous “worried about reading them their rights” passage in the convention speech, have you discerned any particular pattern in Palin’s attitudes toward law enforcement and civil liberties issues from her career in Wassilla and Juneau?
Howdy, Jim!
Not much. She was one of only three governors to issue a proclamation in support of the doctrine of jury nullification. It was just a non-binding proclamation, but that’s a fairly radical position for an elected official to take. So that’s promising.
I’ve taken some heat from reason readers for not being as hard on Palin as some would like. She’s certainly no libertarian. But from what little record she has, I see a few glimmers of hope that she won’t be your typical Republican.
On issues of personal freedom, Alaska is one of the most libertarian states in the country. I guess I just see at least a small chance that some of that might be ingrained in her politics.
That’s in no way an endorsement of the GOP ticket. And four or eight years in Washington in a McCain administration may well sap any allegiance to individual freedom right out of her.
And there’s the fair criticism that if Palin had any notion of individual freedom in her at all, she’d never have agreed to run with McCain.
I think it was cynical pick. But I also think McCain could have done a lot worse. And of the four candidates on the two major party tickets, she’s by far the least worst.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
You commented above that another news org didn’t want to run your story because it wasn’t in-house. While I don’t share a lot of your political views, I am continually impressed by your ability to do in depth reporting on topics like these, often right under the noses of local media who (presumably) should have better access to sources and locations. Are there any other reasons you believe the media is seemingly so poor at sniffing out all the facts in important cases like these?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
about the issue of dogs. The SWAT team tragedy is mostly human, but damn, these fops kill dogs all the time. What is up with that? Can’t they just demand the canine be locked in a room?
I wonder if that ties in with D.A. Ridgely’s concern that giving the cops all these military toys will make them want to use them; calmly asking people to lock their dogs in a separate room won’t fit into their flash-bang M.O.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Radley - I loved your Alaska photos; they have renewed my desire to see this frontier state. I was wondering if you find on some issues - say, health care, whether you can clearly support one of the major party’s positions over the other. I know on the Drug War both are bad, but on trade you clearly favor the Republicans.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
If I can ask a second question, I’d also like to hear your take on Palin’s religious beliefs in terms of how it might affect her governance style and the ongoing melding of church and state within the GOP. I was watching the the RNC and thinking it felt more like a prayer meeting than a government function.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Vadim: on trade *I* favor the GOP. But foreign policy is my paramounts issue, and so “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” McCain is not my candidate.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I agree that part of the problem is the tendency to see these events as isolated incidents given the probably thousands of police departments nationwide.
However, apropos of Alice’s Restaurant (”all kinds of cop equipment hanging around the station house…,” I think the growth of local SWAT teams with all the riot gear etc. tends to encourage police departments to, well, play with their toys more often than the situation actually warrants.
Any comment? Also, any data on the cost of all these SWAT teams and how much the feds, justified by the war on drugs, are both encouraging this behavior and providing the hardware?
You’re absolutely right–both about the need to use the equipment and the role the federal government plays in encouraging this stuff.
When arguing for a SWAT team, police officials will typically cite all sorts of scary scenarios where one might be needed — school shootings, terrorism, mass killings, etc. Of course, the chance of any of these events happening in a given town is almost nil.
So once they have the teams, they’re primarily used to serve drug warrants on nonviolent offenders. And to be honest, incidents like school shootings and mass shootings tend to happen and conclude faster than any SWAT team could possibly respond.
Anecdotally, I’ve also noticed that the more dangerous the situation, the less likely the SWAT team is to actually go in (the SWAT teams at Columbine famously deemed it too dangerous to go inside the school building). Which is odd, because that’s really the only legitimate use of a SWAT team — to de-escalate an already dangerous situation.
The federal government has encouraged the trend toward police militarization in several ways.
First, since the late 1980s, they’ve been offering surplus military equipment to local police departments at steep discounts — sometimes for free. Obtaining military weapons, APCs, tanks, or aircraft inevitably leads to the decision to put it to use — to form a SWAT team.
Of course, once in place, a SWAT team is expensive to maintain — both the equipment, and the training. The federal government helps there, too, through grants specifically tied to drug policing. More drug arrests = more federal cash for the police department. Asset forfeiture laws help there, too.
I’d say the feds have also encouraged this trend through federal officials’ and politicians’ constant use of war imagery when referring to drug prohibition. I think this has done incredible damage to police-community relations, and to domestic policing in general. When you frame domestic policing in war imagery–which we’ve been doing for a generation, now–you ingrain in the police an incredibly damaging “us versus them,” win-at-all-costs mentality.
That sort of mentality is effective when you’re a soldier, when your job is to kill the enemy. It’s a really bad idea when you’re a cop, and your job is to protect the rule of law and our constitutional rights.
So the feds have both encouraged police militarization, and set up incentives to utilize paramilitary police units for drug policing.
I always try to emphasize this in my work. Individual police officers are only enforcing the law, and responding to incentives. Yes, there are bad cops. And good cops too often cover for the bad ones. But nearly all of these problems can be traced back to bad public policy.
Our ire ought to be directed at the politicians who make these stupid laws, who get elected with empty “get tough on crime” slogans, and who don’t have time or don’t care to think critically and carefully about criminal justice issues.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Do you think it is more important to achieve more personal or more economic freedom from where we are now? And which do you think is more likely to stick on the free end, without us having to fight constantly against the government to keep ourselves free?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Not much. She was one of only three governors to issue a proclamation in support of the doctrine of jury nullification. It was just a non-binding proclamation, but that’s a fairly radical position for an elected official to take. So that’s promising.
I didn’t know that but I’m not that impressed by it. It doesn’t strike me as a risky position in AK. More likely a reflection of the popular sentiment.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Radley, about the issue of dogs. The SWAT team tragedy is mostly human, but damn, these fops kill dogs all the time. What is up with that? Can’t they just demand the canine be locked in a room?
Or use a tranquilzer (which I believe they do in Australia). The idea that these cops dressed in bulletproof armor honestly feared for their lives when a dog growls at them is an absolute joke.
I think it’s a terror tactic. Remember, we’re outfitting these guys in military gear, giving them military-grade weapons, training them in military tactics, and telling them they’re fighting a “war” on drugs.
It shouldn’t surprise us, then, when they view the people on the receiving end of these raids as enemy combatants.
I gave a speech a few months ago on this topic, and during the Q&A I was berated by a former military guy, now a professor at VMI.
His objection was not to my criticisms of police militarization. His objection was to the term “militarization.”
The U.S. military, he said, treats the citizens of other countries far better than these SWAT teams treat suspected drug offenders.
I think he had a point.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Why yes! That is an excellent point.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
not trying to hijack to another topic, but what’s up with gambling and is Catherine Hannaway still one of the shining knights in the govt battle to stop internet gambling?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I’d like to hear your take on Palin’s relative to civil liberties and law enforcement. I saw she squashed a move to close bars earlier which I believe was favored by the LEOs. I haven’t seen much else except the book banning.
And if there’s time, I’d be interested in knowing where you stand on voting in this cycle. Meaning are you endorsing a candidate?
I think I’ve written enough on Palin. I think she’s a big question mark on civil liberties — but that it probably doesn’t matter because McCain will be making the policy. And he’s awful.
I don’t think I’m important enough to “endorse” a candidate. I had considered voting for Obama, but his economic populism is just too much to bear. And I was really underwhelmed by his choice for VP. There are only a handful of Republicans have done more drug war damage than Joe Biden.
I’ll probably vote for Barr.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Radley: Your agreed-upon time here is over, but you are welcome to stay if you wish!
September 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Radley, on Barr, I was wondering if you have a reaction to The Onion’s summation of his career, quoted below-
Issues:
(1995–2007) Trying to control the faith, sexuality, reproduction, drug use, and national allegiance of every single American. (2007–) Aw, Fuck it.
Link http://www.theonion.com/content/node/84933
September 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
You commented above that another news org didn’t want to run your story because it wasn’t in-house. While I don’t share a lot of your political views, I am continually impressed by your ability to do in depth reporting on topics like these, often right under the noses of local media who (presumably) should have better access to sources and locations. Are there any other reasons you believe the media is seemingly so poor at sniffing out all the facts in important cases like these?
I think there is one big reason, though you might not like my answer.
I think most journalist are of liberal politics. And I think because of that, they tend have a lot of faith in government to do the right thing most of the time. So they’re more likely to take police and prosecutors at their word. I think most journalists probably agree with me on broad criminal justice issues. But they put a high value on public service, and so I think they aren’t as skeptical of public servants as I am.
I’ll give you one quick example. A few months after the raid on Cory Maye’s home, the NY Times’ longtime criminal justice reporter Fox Butterfield was actually in Prentiss, Mississippi, and actually wrote about Cory’s case.
But he went to Prentiss with a predetermined premise for his story — how drugs were destroying rural areas in the south. Not how the drug war was destroying them, but how drugs were destroying them. If you search the NY Times site, you’ll find his article — it was on the front page.
He read the facts of Cory’s case, talked to Cory’s lawyer, the police chief (father of the slain officer), and the county sheriff. But because he went to Mississippi with his premise already in mind–that the government needs to do more to fight the drug war in rural areas, he never took notice of the obvious injustice of Cory’s case.
I first found Cory’s case on a Lexis search while I was researching my paper for Cato. But I came at the story from a completely different angle. I don’t think public servants are benevolent, I think they’re selfish–as we all are. I think government’s prohibition of drugs does far more damage than drugs themselves.
So the story leapt off the screen at me. Butterfield saw a pot smoker who killed a cop to protect his stash, and took the police account as the truth. I saw a guy with no prior record, who had a tiny bit of burnt marijuana in his apartment, home alone with his daughter, and thought, “there’s no way this guy meant to kill a cop.”
All of the stories I write are about government abuses of power. I think many of them fly under the radar because most journalists are big believers in government.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Isn’t Barr one of that handful of Republicans? Do you take his recent conversion seriously?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
There are only a handful of Republicans have done more drug war damage than Joe Biden.
I can’t argue with that but I’m swallowing it and voting for Obama because a win by this GOP ticket would be such an unmitigated disaster that I’m willing to cast a pragmatic vote to do what I can to prevent it.
I’m with Mona. It’s the foreign policy that’s most important to me in this cycle and I’ll think he will be able to restore some of our status. Certainly the recent polling shows the international community prefers him to win.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Radley, I agree with you that most journalists - most Americans, I’d wager - have a bias towards the authorities. But I’m not sure its fair to classify this tendency as liberal or conservative. Many liberals have authoritarian tendencies, but many conservatives do as well. Ask Dick Cheney for his views on government power, for example.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
If you’re still here Radley, thanks for chatting with us.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Radely writes: All of the stories I write are about government abuses of power. I think many of them fly under the radar because most journalists are big believers in government.
Yes, but they are neocon-friendly; but then neocons are big government Republicans (a few are Dems).
September 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I’ll take one more….
Do you think it is more important to achieve more personal or more economic freedom from where we are now? And which do you think is more likely to stick on the free end, without us having to fight constantly against the government to keep ourselves free?
I think economic freedom is a lost cause. Neither party really supports free markets, or has any interest at all in limiting the size and scope of the federal government. The GOP is dominated now by national greatness types, and has all but exiled its Goldwater/libertarian wing.
At this point, I tend to identify more with the left, probably because the GOP has held power for the better part of the last decade, because also because I think there’s still hope for civil liberties. I’m sure that if he’s elected, Obama will disappoint. But at least at this point, he’s saying some decent things.
I think the right is correct about one thing — judges are important. The right just happens to be dead wrong about judges. When it comes to protecting our civil liberties, I want activist judges. I want a strong 14th Amendment. I want them striking down every freedom-inhibiting law that passes a president or governor’s desk.
I think the Supreme Court’s decision in Raich killed the Commerce Clause and Rehnquist’s “federalism revolution”–and with them any hope of a constitutionally-limited federal government.
So at this point, I’ll take what I can get. Which is piecemeal protection of civil liberties. Unfortunately, that means on some issues that means conservative judges (property rights, gun rights), on others it means liberal judges (most criminal justice issues, free speech, war on terror and executive power issues).
That’s sort of a rambling answer. I guess the gist is that I think at this point individual freedom is more important, both because of the threats to it posed by the wars on terror and drugs, and because I think all hope is lost on the economic front — no matter who wins in November.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Thank you for taking the time to chat with us tonight, Radley. Keep fighting the good fight.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Thanks for the chat!
September 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
And sorry for the typos. I was trying to answer as many questions as I could.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Thanks for the time. Good answers for me to read through
September 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
[...] reading through the comments on Radley Balko’s chat here yesterday, I was thinking the greatest gap between libertarians and liberals is the belief in [...]